THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY  I 

From  the  collectihh'  of^ 
Julius  Doerner,  Chicago 
Purchased,  1918. 


h 

The  person  charging  this  material  is  re-  « 
sponsible  for  its  return  to  the  library  from  I 
which  it  was  withdrawn  on  or  before  the  | 
Latest  Date  stamped  below.  | 

h' 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons 
for  disciplinary  action  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from 
the  University. 


To  renew  call  Telephone  Center,  333-8400 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS  LIBRARY  AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


r 


\ 


i 


THE  LIBBABY 
OF  THE 

VWVERHTY  OF  lEtiSSIS 


t.  < 


m  o  o  ©oBc 


James  K.ciy  Jf  ^C?  fltilaclftlpliia 
JoKr.J.Ka}’  5c  C°  fitt^sbui'^. 


THE 


EVIDENCES 

OF 

CHRISTIANITY 


BY 

ALEXANDER,  WATSON, 
JENYNS,  LESLIE,  AND  PALE Y 


IN  TWO  VOLUMES. 

VOL.  I. 


PUBLISHED  BV 

JAMES  KAY,  JUN.  AND  BROTHER,  PHILADELPHIA. 
122  Chestnut  Street — near  4th. 

PITTSBURGH :  C.  H?  KAY  &;  CO. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1831,  by  James 
Kay,  Jun.  &;  Co.  in  the  Clerk’s  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United 
States  in  and  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


6 


STEREOTYPED  BY  J.  HOWE. 


WATSON’S 

APOLOGY  FOR  CHRISTIANITY- 


WATSON’S 

APOLCX5Y  FOR  THE  BIBLE; 

JENYNS’S 

VIEW  OF  THE  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN 

RELIGION ; 

LESLIE’S 

SHORT  AND  EASY  METHOD  WITH  DEISTS; 

PALEY’S 

VIEW  OF  THE  EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

WITH 

^  ^eUmfnars  Biscoursr, 

BY 

ARCH.  ALEXANDER,  D.  D. 

PEOrESSOR  OF  THEOLOGY  IN  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  AT  PRINCETON 
IN  NEW-JERSEY,  ETC.  ETC. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

TAMES  KAY,  JUN.  AND  BROTHER,  PHILADELPHIA. 

122  Chestnut  Street — near  4th. 

PITTSBURGH:  C.  11.  KAY  &  CO. 


,:4K  It-p  i^:  :i^ 


?  A^ 


; 

♦. 


"'v  .’  ■  >**'■  V-  ^ 

... 

’>  •?'''  '  ‘-.t 

:  m\iir.''^''‘-  ■-«^- 

•  ft*.'  *  •^*-'  -  ^ -  "•  ■■  ' '. 

i»  .  ■  .  '  '  "  .  ■*  *  -^v.  '  •  •’  ■-,‘v.NY  ^ 

*■  ’■■“ 


-» • 


-  ^■ 


'  ■  v  1'  ^ 


'(• »»- 


i 


% .. 


,  W  '  V 


'\\d. 


4 

l/,i 


V 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


^  The  Collection  of  Treatises  now  offered  to  the  pub 
'lie,  upon  the  Evidences  of  the  Christian  Religion,  will 
be  found  to  comprise,  in  a  neat  and  condensed  form,  a 
body  of  most  important  argument  upon  this  interesting 
subject.  The  Preliminary  Essay  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Alex¬ 
ander  will  afford  the  reader  a  useful  survey  of  the 
general  topics,  and  also  introduce  more  fully  to  his 
acquaintance,  the  celebrated  authors  whose  works  we 
have  collected,  Paley,  Watson,  Jenyns,  and  Leslie. 
It  is  believed  that  a  large  and  respectable  class  of  pri¬ 
vate  Christians,  and  especially  students  of  theology, 
will  find  it  an  advantage  to  receive,  in  a  pocket  volume, 
the  most  select  fruits  of  learned  labor  in  defence  of 
our  holy  religion.  To  those  whose  time  does  not  allow 
of  extensive  investigation,  as  well  as  those  who  con¬ 
sult  economy,  this  little  compilation  will  probably  be 
welcome ;  more  particularly  as  there  is  no  volume,  of 
whatever  size,  in  the  English  language,  which  offers 
so  valuable  a  syllabus  of  these  fundamental  discus 
sions. 

At  a  time  like  the  present,  when  adventurous  specu¬ 
lation  is  at  its  height,  there  is  no  friend  of  Christianity 
who  may  not  profit  by  a  recurrence  to  such  a  manual  ; 
in  which  he  will  find  spread  before  his  mind  the  great 
proofs  of  religion,  for  the  enlargement  of  his  know¬ 
ledge,  the  resolution  of  his  doubts,  and  the  abundant 
corroboration  of  his  faith.  Any  one  of  the  works  in¬ 
cluded  is  singly  valuable.  One  or  two  of  them,  in  a 
complete  form,  are  exceedingly  rare,  and  they  consti 


10 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


tute  together  a  truly  Christian  panoply.  The  Pub¬ 
lishers  indulge  some  confidence,  therefore,  in  com¬ 
mitting  this  work  to  the  impartial  and  enlightened 
judgment  of  clergymen,  theological  students,  instruct¬ 
ors  of  youth,  and  inquiring  men  of  every  class.  It 
contains  nothing  characteristic  of  particular  denomi¬ 
nations  ;  nothing  which  does  not  rest  on  the  basis  of 
our  common  Christianity. 

This  Collection  is  neatly  printed,  and  embellished 
with  a  likeness  of  Bishop  Watson ;  and  no  care  or 
labor  has  been  spared  in  endeavoring  to  issue  a  book 
in  all  respects  worthy  of  public  attention.  Should  it 
meet  with  encouragement,  it  is  proposed  to  follow  it 
by  similar  collections  upon  allied  subjects. 


THE  PUBLISHERS. 


CONTENTS. 


VOL.  1. 

I.  A  Preliminary  Discourse  on  the  Evidences  of  Chris¬ 

tianity  ;  with  a  short  account  of  the  Treatises  which 
these  volumes  contain.  By  Archibald  Alexander,  D.  D., 
Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at 
Princeton,  N.  J . Page  15 

II.  An  Apology  for  Christianity,  in  a  Series  of  Letters, 

addressed  to  Edward  Gibbon,  Esq.,  Author  of  the  ‘  His¬ 
tory  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire.’ 
By  R.  Watson,  D.  D.,  F.  R.  S.,  and  Regius  Professor  of 
Divinity  in  the  University  of  Cambridge . 45 

III.  An  Apology  for  the  Bible,  in  a  Series  of  Letters,  ad¬ 

dressed  to  Thomas  Paine,  Author  of  a  Book  entitled 
‘  The  Age  of  Reason,  Part  the  Second,  being  an  Investi¬ 
gation  of  True  and  of  Fabulous  Theology.’  By  R.  Wat¬ 
son,  D.  D.,  F.  R.  S.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  and  Re¬ 
gius  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Cam¬ 
bridge . 105 

rV  A  View  of  the  Internal  Evidence  of  the  Christian  Re¬ 
ligion.  By  Soame  Jenyns,  Esq . 191 

V.  A  Short  and  Easy  Method  with  the  Deists.  In  a  Letter 
to  a  Friend.  By  the  Rev.  Charles  Leslie,  M.  A.  .  .  231 


VoL.  II. 

VI.  A  View  of  the  Evidences  of  Christianity.  In  three 
Parts.  By  William  Paley,  D.  D.,  Archdeacon  of  Car¬ 
lisle . 15 


;.  v  '  ♦»•>%■> -'.t  •  •. 


y  /•' 


V  ' 


^  S> 


ix 
7  - 


K-  :,t'-;>-.  /vf"  .f.'iif.  I’Vf/'  ' * 


|_v.  ,^-  '(*^■•■'*1  •  (!*;,*<■(  J ii. >■>.-■! •iA/')'*'’'  ...>i  fr  VVi'IfHSU'-i  '^'  t 

‘^OfJrriAv  X  nrt  X) ^oifcarr-'? 


•;  ;;-  io  ^(;  ■V3i  t  Sldf-^  T'Jo* 

rwan,^  :  i:J;V.r' 

Sfe£.»r,;...  ,3:’J>! *o  74i'. . :'■- /rn  ^  'fiif  nt  vlirsiviO  ^ 


ij  n;  y-i  v:,  utyK^u^.  ,m' 

•^:>S  or  ^ 

h~’  •Tff'M  jH!or>^fe  a<l» ,|f  'rfnc^iJf  ‘U  3f?T  -  - 

'V *.^vo:aOfl^X  :  'V-  T.f.a  ”^0  JKiite^ 

hffii  ,Uvf>d«!,T  *!,>  ;  ;  |ii  [-/.(vY  ,.’^^*  ,}t(  :' 

d()X  '  '  '  -  V  =  •"'■  •' 

^  '•  .V  -  ...  ,  4.  .  .  . . .  .  ,.rsf'f..  , 


:^.  fffi  v->iv  vi 

JmT-**'  .  ,  ./“K  »  ,  .  ■I  '-y^  i  v^jL’  *riT:r-.v 


-  i?  ffl.  o{}-)  d^Kv J  •,'  tf^Y-bnti  A  ..V 

loS  .-  <91^71  i(tj  V^f  *  (i 

4^..  -  '  *  '  *  ■--- 


■4^ 

■  •y 


.  \  * 


JUl.-nV./ 

•M'  *  ^  '■ 

hi  '  ‘  •;.  ij  '-c  .iX'/  A  .r? 

-•;,  '.-tl^  ,^p  v:5^  -Jff  pw  W  '* 

.i-v  ■  ■■  • 


r 


4 


A 

PRELIMINARY  DISCOURSE 

ON 

THE  EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

WITH 

A  SHORT  ACCOUNT 

OF 

THE  TREATISES  WHICH  THESE  VOLUMES  CONTAIN. 

BY 

ARCHIBALD  ALEXANDER,  D.  D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOGY  IN  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  AT 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 

13 


B 


ii  \ 


■  V. 

>■  ■ 


«*  • 


W. - 


It- 

/  -'V' 


>■  ^ 


•  *• 

tf"- 


':  » 


V  > 


-r  ■  ;<:a,  » 


.%  - 


3'>.  ':-.V'^' 


■  «<'•  ,- 


V'  i* 


'  * 


"S 

^ 


■.A  » 


t 


.  ■  a^.;ytK»ici.'^/^£i!jii...  UJ34 

•  iV  .  ■  •'--■■■■  ^ 


.:i  rffefAi  re.. 


■-iarj^’.."i;iti'  SH’r 


r  V- 


^T#tjrv 


,;  f  "  -: ' 

•  *»*' . 


#wV  '  * 


0/ ;;4:;^fl^r  o;  i*  .ij, ;  '  t 

.  4. 


^ii 


^  . 


.r.  e 


..  ■;^.H vm:.  V". 


^»p?' 


'.  .Jr'*  •■^  --  ■ 


. 

V  .  •  ■  ’t 


.,1^.  - 


■  3' 's' 


W- 


■  '  <« 


.rT' 

r». 


•'  ■'■  •  .  ^ .-  ■  .  .  .; 


'V  :/ 

“>1^- 


s  , 


,  J 


ri.  ‘ 

'ifT  ■  '-'T 

’3f.-*.  «•  .  V  ■ 


V  ■w^ 

>  % 


ff  >«•  • 


.U: 


4 


PRELIMINARY  DISCOURSE. 


Whatever  may  be  the  truth  in  regard  to  religion,  it  must  be  ad 
mitted  to  be  the  most  important  subject  which  can  possibly  occupy 
the  thoughts  of  a  rational  creature.  It  cannot  be  wise  to  treat  it,  as 
many  have  done,  with  levity  and  ridicule  :  for  even  on  the  supposi¬ 
tion  that  there  is  no  true  religion,  it  is  a  serious  thing  that  it  has 
got  such  a  hold  of  the  human  mind,  that  it  cannot  be  shaken  off ;  so 
that  men  of  the  noblest  powers  of  intellect  and  the  highest  moral 
courage  have  been  subdued  and  led  captive  by  its  impressions.  And 
they  who  boast  a  complete  exemption  from  its  influence,  and  glory 
in  the  name  of  atheist  or  sceptic,  do  nevertheless  often  betray  a 
mind  ill  at  ease,  and  in  the  extremity  of  their  distress  are  sometimes 
heard  to  call  upon  that  God  whose  existence  they  have  denied,  and 
to  implore  that  mercy  which  they  have  been  accustomed  to  deride. 
It  has  been  said,  that  atheists  are  of  all  men  the  most  afraid  of 
invisible  powers ;  they  tremble  at  their  own  shadow,  and  are  averse 
to  be  left  alone  in  the  dark.  They  seem  to  be  haunted  vdth  a  secret 
apprehension  that  the  reality  of  religion  will  at  some  moment  flash 
upon  their  conviction.  It  is  with  them  a  common  saying,  that  “  fear 
made  the  gods but  it  would  be  much  more  true  to  assert,  that  fear 
made  atheists ;  for  what  but  the  dread  of  a  Supreme  Being  could  be 
a  motive  strong  enough  to  lead  men  to  contend  so  earnestly  agains 
the  existence  of  God  ?  Few  men,  even  among  the  irreligious,  are 
willing  to  be  reckoned  atheists.  Indeed,  a  man  should  first  take 
leave  of  his  reason  before  he  advocates  an  opinion  demonstrated  to 
be  false  by  every  thing  which  we  behold.  The  name  deist  is 
doubtless  much  more  honorable  than  atheist ;  but  many  who  pro¬ 
fess  to  believe  in  a  great  First  Cause,  have  no  more  religion  than 
the  atheist :  their  faith  has  no  effect  upon  them,  and  can  have  none, 
because  their  God  is  not  a  person — ^nor  an  intelligent  voluntary 
agent,  by  whom  the  world  was  made,  but  a  sort  of  blind  power, 

15 


DR.  ALEXANDER’S 


16 

which  pervades  the  universe ;  a  kind  of  active  principle  which 
exerts  itself  in  ten  thousand  different  ways,  but  has  no  existence 
separate  from  the  universe  in  which  it  dwells,  and  which  it  moulds 
and  animates.  Such  a  God  commands  no  respect,  and  inspires  no 
dread.  No  wonder  that  deists  of  this  school  have  no  religious  feel¬ 
ings,  and,  except  in  name,  are  not  in  the  least  distinguished  from  the 
bhndest  atheists.  Epicurus  did  not  deny  the  existence  of  the  gods ; 
but  he  took  care  to  invest  them  with  such  attributes,  and  to  remove 
them  so  far  off  as  to  have  no  concern  whatever  in  the  creation  or 
government  of  the  world.  They  were  consequently  not  hkely  to 
interfere  with  him  in  his  career  of  pleasure. 

Give  the  sensualist  a  God  who  takes  no  notice  of  his  conduct,  and 
who  possesses  no  attribute  which  will  lead  him  to  punish  the  guilty, 
and  he  will  be  well  pleased  with  the  idol,  and  may  be  disposed  to 
contend  for  the  reahty  of  his  existence.  It  is  the  justice  of  God 
which  drives  men  from  his  presence,  to  hide  themselves  in  the  dark¬ 
ness  of  infidehty.  This  guilty  dread  of  the  Almighty  is  a  sure 
evidence  that  man  is  not  in  his  right  condition.  An  innocent  crea¬ 
ture  would  dehght  in  approaching  to  the  Best  of  Beings. 

But,  leaving  as  incorrigible  all  those  who  deny  the  moral  govern¬ 
ment  of  God,  let  us  see  whether  they  who  are  advocates  for  natural 
rehgion,  are  standing  on  safe  and  solid  ground.  It  is  a  plausible 
argument  a  priori,  that  God  would  not  place  man  in  this  world 
without  furnishing  him  with  the  means  of  knowing,  and  the  ability 
to  perform  his  duty ;  and  as  reason  is  his  guide  in  other  matters,  so 
reason  must  be  a  sufficient  guide  in  mattei’s  of  religion.  But  what 
if  man  has  forsaken  the  state  in  which  his  maker  placed  him  ?  We 
see  that  he  is  a  free  agent,  and  therefore  he  may  have  acted  per¬ 
versely,  and  brought  himself  into  difficulties  out  of  which  he  cannot 
extricate  himself  He  may,  by  his  own  folly,  have  lost  a  large  por¬ 
tion  of  that  knowledge,  with  which  he  was  originally  endowed.  It 
would  be  very  unreasonable  to  make  this  supposition,  if  nothing 
but  wisdom,  rectitude,  and  purity  had  ever  been  observed  in  the 
human  kind.  But  when  we  see  how  much  ignorance,  how  much 
palpable  error,  how  much  perverseness,  how  much  moral  disorder, 
and  how  much  misery  are  prevalent  among  men,  we  are  constrained 
to  admit  it  to  be  probable,  that  the  human  race  stand  in  need  of 
something  more  than  their  own  reason  to  guide  them  in  the  way 
to  happiness ;  or  even  to  assure  them  that  happiness  is  attainable. 

It  is  in  vain  to  talk  of  the  powers  of  nature  and  the  hght  of  reason. 


PRELIMINARY  DISCOURSE. 


1 

when  we  see  millions  of  men  groping  in  darkness,  and  stnmhling  on 
the  precipice  of  ruin.  Man  needs  help ;  he  needs  instruction  ;  he 
needs  a  remedy  for  the  moral  disorders  of  his  nature.  And  here  the 
question  occurs,  has  any  remedy  been  found  effectual  to  remove  or 
mitigate  these  evils  ?  Has  religion  been  able  to  do  any  thing  for  our 
race  ?  Alas !  in  regard  to  most  rehgions,  they  have  rather  aggra¬ 
vated  than  cured  the  malady.  We  plead  not  for  idolatry,  in  any  of 
its  pompous  forms :  it  carries  absurdity  and  impiety  in  its  very  face. 
It  binds  the  soul  of  man  with  bonds  the  most  cruel.  It  degrades 
him  to  the  dust,  and  renders  him  capable  of  every  thing  mean  and 
vile.  There  have  been  innumerable  forms  of  idolatry;  some  of 
which  have  been  more  mild  and  less  monstrous  than  others  ;  but 
every  system  of  idolatry  is  an  abomination.  Towards  God  it  is 
treason  and  rebellion ;  and  in  relation  to  man  it  is  defiling  and  mur¬ 
derous.  Cruelty  and  obscenity  have  ever  been  the  characteristics 
of  idolatry.  Whether  such  religion  is  better  or  worse  than  blank" 
atheism,  we  need  not  stop  to  dispute.  Both  evils  are  deadly ;  and 
the  choice  would  be  difficult  between  some  forms  of  superstition 
and  atheism  itself. 

When  we  reject  all  the  religions  which  come  under  the  denomina¬ 
tion  of  Pagan  superstition,  all  of  which  are  idolatrous  and  demo- 
falizing,  we  have  cast  off  a  large  part  of  what  has  gone  by  this 
name,  in  all  ages  of  the  world ;  and  would  to  God  it  were  as  easy  to 
reject  this  whole  system  of  absurdity,  blood,  and  vileness  from  the 
world,  as  it  is  to  exclude  it  from  all  share  in  our  approbation !  Here 
then  is  one  fact  for  which  the  deist  should  be  able  to  account.  It  is, 
that  while  the  world  has  been  for  thousands  of  years  overrun  with 
gross  idolatry,  which  has  infected  the  learned  and  polished,  as  well 
as  the  rude,  there  have  been  some  nations  exempt  from  this  general 
and  debasing  evil.  Formerly,  the  small  nation  of  the  Jews,  though 
much  less  learned  and  refined  than  the  Egyptians,  Greeks  or  Ro¬ 
mans,  maintained  the  doctrme  of  the  Unity  of  God,  and  the  duty  of 
rendering  to  him  spiritual  worship  and  cordial  obedience.  For 
nearly  two  tliousand  years  past  other  nations  have  been  found,  cast¬ 
ing  off  the  gross  superstitions  of  Paganism ;  and  at  this  time,  when 
we  cast  our  eye  over  the  map  of  the  world,  we  descry  some  lumin¬ 
ous  spots  from  which  the  darkness  of  polytheism  and  gross  idolatry 
has  been  dispelled.  Now  it  is  a  fact,  obvious  to  every  observer, 
that  the  oiily  people  in  the  world  who  are  exempt  from  gross  idola¬ 
try  are  those  who  have  been  enlightened  by  the  Bible.  I  do  not 


18  DR.  ALEXANDER’S 

except  Mohammedans,  for  all  the  best  parts  of  their  system  were 
borrowed  from  the  Bible.  They  are  merely  a  corrupt  sect  of  Chris¬ 
tian  heretics;  for  they  acknowledge  the  divine  origin  of  both  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  Scripbares,  pretending,  however,  that  these  are 
exceedingly  corrupted  and  interpolated. 

But  let  us  return  to  the  question  which  I  wish  the  deist  to 
exercise  his  ingenuity  in  solving.  It  is,  how  it  has  happened  that  the 
Bible  has  been  the  only  means  of  destropng  idolatry  in  the  world  ? 
This  effect  is  not  confined  to  ancient  times :  very  recently, 
whole  tribes  of  degraded  savages  have  rejected  their  idolatrous 
superstitions,  under  the  influence  of  Christianity.  Look  at  the  So¬ 
ciety  and  Sandwich  islands : — look  at  the  converted  Greenlanders, 
Hottentots,  Caffres,  and  Negroes,  and  explain  the  strange  and  happy 
transformation  which  has  taken  place.  That  must  have  been  a 
wonderful  imposture  which  has  been  attended  with  effects  so  bene¬ 
ficial  to  man.  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  Christianity  and  civilization 
are  nearly  related  to  each  other,  and  that  those  nations  which  per 
mit  and  encourage  the  free  and  general  reading  of  the  Scriptures, 
are,  everywhere,  the  foremost  in  the  race  of  improvement,  and  in 
the  enjo5rment  of  rational  liberty. 

It  is  indeed  objected  by  the  deist,  that  Christianity  has  been  the 
occasion  of  innumerable  evils  -that  it  has  given  rise  to  wars,  and 
many  bloody  persecutions.  Now,  it  would  be  impossible  to  devise 
an  objection  which  has  less  foundation  than  this.  I  can  hardly  per¬ 
suade  myself,  that  any  man  who  has  carefully  read  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  can  be  serious  in  alleging  such  things  against  Christianity. 
Christ,  it  is  true,  did  predict  that  his  religion  would  be  the  occasion 
of  strife  and  division,  even  amongst  the  nearest  relatives  ;  but  this 
not  fi-om  any  thing  in  itself  which  naturally  tended  to  produce  such 
evils ;  but  entirely  from  the  wickedness  of  men,  who  would  set 
themselves  in  opposition  to  the  truth,  and  persecute  those  who  em¬ 
braced  it:  a  persecution  which  would  be  more  virulent  towards 
the  members  of  their  own  families  ;  so  that  the  prediction  has  often 
been  verified,  “  a  man’s  foes  shall  be  those  of  his  own  household.” 
It  will  also  be  conceded,  that  Christianity  has  often  been  misimder- 
stood  and  grossly  perverted  by  its  professors  ;  and  that  under  its  sa¬ 
cred  name,  though  with  an  opposite  spirit,  persecutions  have  been 
carried  on,  the  mere  recital  of  which  is  enough  to  make  us  shudder. 
But  who  does  not  see,  that,  while  it  is  as  evident  as  the  noon-day 
light  that  this  is  not  the  genius  of  Christianity,  the  blame  of  these 


PRELIMINARY  DISCOURSE.  19 

e:nls  cannot  in  justice  be  charged  upon  the  system  ?  As  well  might 
we  chhrge  liberty  with  all  the  w'ars  and  all  the  misery,  occasioned 
by  the  contests  to  maintain  or  recover  this  inestimable  blessing.  Any 
system,  however  pure  and  benevolent,  is  liable  to  abuse  in  the  hands 
of  men ;  and  in  all  such  cases,  the  system  cannot  be  judged  by  its 
perversion  and  abuse,  but  by  an  impartial  examination  of  its  own 
genuine  principles.  Such  an  investigation  Christianity  challenges  ; 
and  indeed  a  verdict  has  already  been  given  in  her  favor,  by  many 
of  her  opposers  themselves.  They  have  not  been  able  to  resist  the 
wisdom,  the  purity,  and  the  peaceful  tendency  of  the  gospel ;  so 
that  unwilhng  praise  has  been  extorted  from  themselves. 

If  the  Christian  rehgion  is  “a  cunningly  devised  fable,”  there  are 
two  things  relative  to  it,  which  can  never  be  satisfactorily  accounted 
for.  The  one  is,  that  a  falsehood  should  be  surrounded  with  so 
many  of  the  evidences  and  circumstances,  by  which  truth  is  charac¬ 
terized  ;  the  other,  that  an  imposture,  proceeding  from  minds  exceed- 
ingly  corrupt,  should  be  marked  with  such  purity  in  its  moral  prin¬ 
ciples,  and  such  a  benevolent  and  peaceful  tendency  in  all  its  pro¬ 
visions  and  precepts.  Wliatever  objections  may  be  made  to  the 
system  of  Christianity,  these  difficulties  will  stand  in  the  Way  of  the 
deist ;  and  he  never  can  overcome  them. 

Let  us  calmly  contemplate  this  subject.  The  Christian  religion 
is  founded  on  facts,  for  the  truth  of  which  an  appeal  is  made  to  tes¬ 
timony, — the  ground  on  which  all  other  ancient  facts  are  received. 
If  these  facts  did  i*eally  occur,  then  Christianity  must  be  true.  If 
they  did  not,  why  can  it  not  be  shown  ?  Was  there  ever  a  case,  in 
wliich  transactions  so  public,  and  in  the  truth  of  which  so  many 
persons  were  interested,  w'ere  so  circumstanced  as  to  baffle  every 
efibrt  to  detect  the  fraud  attempted  to  be  imposed  on  the  world  ? 
Here  then  is  a  wonderful  thing.  The  defenders  of  Christianity  ap¬ 
peal  to  facts  attested  by  many  competent  and  credible  witnesses ; 
they  show  that  these  witnesses  could  not  themselves  have  been 
deceived  in  the  nature  of  the  things,  concerning  which  they  give 
their  testimony; — they  demonstrate  from  every  circumstance  of 
their  condition,  that  they  could  have  had  no  motive  for  wishing  to 
propagate  the  belief  of  these  facts,  if  they  had  not  been  true ; — 
that,  in  giving  the  testimony  which  they  did,  they  put  to  risk,  and 
actually  sacrificed  every  thing  most  dear  to  men ; — that,  even  if  they 
could  have  been  induced  by  some  inconceivable  motive  to  propa¬ 
gate  what  they  knew  to  be  false,  it  was  morally  impossible  that 


20 


DR.  ALEXANDER’S 


they  could  have  persuaded  any  persons  to  believe  them ;  because 
the  things  related  by  them  being  of  a  recent  date  and  public  nature, 
and  the  names  of  persons  and  places  specified,  nothing  would  have 
been  easier  than  to  disprove  false  assertions  so  situated.  Moreover, 
the  persons  who  first  became  disciples  of  Christ  and  membere  of 
the  church  from  the  declarations  of  the  apostles  cannot  be  supposed 
to  have  admitted  the  truth  of  these  things  without  examination,  for 
every  principle  of  self-preservation  must  have  been  awake  to  guard 
them  against  delusion.  By  attaching  themselves  to  this  new  sect 
“  everywhere  spoken  against,”  and  persecuted  both  by  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  they  did  literally  forsake  all  that  man  holds  most  dear  in 
this  life.  If  there  had  existed  no  persons  possessed  of  power  and 
sagacity,  who  were  deeply  interested  in  the  refutation  of  falsehoods 
which  would  implicate  them  in  disgrace,  the  evidence  would  not  be 
so  overwhelming  as  it  is;  but  we  know,  that  all  the  power  and 
learning  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  also  of  the  Roman  Government, 
were  arrayed  against  the  publishers  of  the  gospel ;  for  just  in  pro¬ 
portion  as  the  report  of  these  men  gained  credit,  the  conduct  of 
those  who  persecuted  Christ  unto  death,  would  appear  clothed  in 
the  darkest  colors.  Why  did  they  not,  at  once,  come  forward  and 
crush  the  imposture  ?  It  has  also  been  fully  established  by  the 
friends  of  revelation,  that  we  are  in  possession  of  the  genuine  re¬ 
cords  published  soon  after  the  events  occurred.  There  is  no  room 
for  any  suspicion  that  the  gospels  were  the  fabrication  of  a  later  age 
than  that  of  the  apostles  ;  or  that  they  have  been  corrupted  and  in¬ 
terpolated,  since  they  were  written.  And  finally,  the  effects  pro¬ 
duced  by  the  pubhcation  of  these  facts  are  such  as  almost  to  con¬ 
strain  the  behef,  that  the  gospel  narrative  is  true :  for  the  rapid  and 
extensive  progress  of  the  Christian  religion  can,  upon  no  other 
principles,  be  rationally  accormted  for.  It  would  be  as  great  a 
miracle  for  a  few  unlearned  fishermen  and  mechanics  to  be  success¬ 
ful  in  founding  a  religion,  which  in  a  short  time  changed  the  whole 
aspect  of  the  world,  as  any  recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  Now, 
supposing  the  facts  in  question  to  be  true,  what  other,  or  greater 
evidence  of  their  truth  could  we  have  had,  than  we  already  pos¬ 
sess  ?  What  other  facts  of  equal  antiquity  are  half  as  well  attested  ? 
Let  the  deist  choose  any  portion  of  ancient  history,  and  adduce  his 
testimony  in  proof  of  the  facts,  and  then  compare  the  evidence  in 
their  support,  with  that  which  the  friends  of  Christianity  have  ex¬ 
hibited  for  all  the  material  facts  recorded  in  the  gospel ;  and  I  shall 


PRELIMINARY  DISCOURSE.  21 

be  disappointed  if  he  do  not,  upon  an  impartial  examination,  find  the 
latter  to  be  much  more  various  and  convincing. 

But  these  facts  are  miraculous.  This  single  circumstance  is,  in 
the  deistical  creed,  made  to  outweigh  all  the  clearest  evidence 
which  can  be  adduced.  This  therefore  may  be  considered  the  root 
of  the  error ;  for  when  it  comes  to  be  fairly  considered,  it  must  ap¬ 
pear  to  be  nothing  better  than  an  unfounded  prejudice.  Why  should 
it  be  considered  impossible  or  unreasonable  for  God  to  work  a 
miracle  ?  Every  event  was  a  miracle,  before  any  laws  of  nature 
were  established.  The  creation  of  the  universe  was  a  magnificent 
j  miracle.  And  if  the  great  author  of  this  system  choose  occasionally 

!  to  regulate  it  by  an  extraordinary  interposition  of  his  power,  what 

principle  is  violated  ?  Why  should  human  reason  so  pertinaciously 
object,  as  though  God  had  denied  himself,  or  contradicted  our  rea¬ 
son  ?  But  the  deist  insists,  that  never  having  seen  miracles  performed, 
we  cannot  reasonably  be  expected  to  credit  them,  on  the  report  of 
others.  And  is  it  true,  that  it  is  unreasonable  to  believe  what  we 
ourselves  have  never  experienced  ?  Upon  this  principle,  the  inhabit¬ 
ants  of  the  tropical  regions  ought  never  to  beheve  in  the  existence 
of  snow  or  ice  ;  and  the  bhnd  man  should  obstinately  refuse  to  be¬ 
lieve  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  vision  by  the  eyes ;  or  the  deaf 
man,  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  hearing  by  the  ears.  Miracles 
do  require  more  proof  than  common  events,  as  do  other  events  of 
an  extraordinary  kind,  but  when  testimony  of  a  certain  land  and 
degree  is  exhibited,  the  presumption  naturally  felt  against  the  reahty 
of  such  events,  is  readily  overcome  in  every  unprejudiced  mind.  And 
if  any  one  wishes  to  disprove  the  truth  of  such  facts,  he  must  do  it 
by  canvassing  the  evidence,  and  shovving  that  it  is  insufficient,  or 
inconsistent  and  contradictory:  or  he  must  bring  forward  testi¬ 
mony  to  rebut  that  which  has  been  exhibited.  This  is  the  only  ra¬ 
tional  method  of  proceeding  in  such  a  case ;  yet  it  has  not  been  pur¬ 
sued  by  the  opposers  of  Christianity.  There  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 
numerous  attacks  on  the  New  Testament,  a  single  example  of  a 
calm  and  impartial  attempt  to  prove,  by  authentic  testimony,  that 
such  facts  as  those  recorded,  never  took  place.  But  why  has  not 
this  been  done  ? 

Why  have  not  deists  brought  forward  convincing  testimony  to 
prove  that  these  histories  are  false  and  unworthy  of  credit ;  instead 
of  dealing  in  irrelevant  objections,  and  throwing  out  dark  suspicions 
and  innuendoes?  If  the  truth  is  on  their  side,  why  have  they  not 

2 


22 


DR.  ALEXANDER’S 


been  able  to  show  that  a  fraud  was  committed,  and  a  base  impos¬ 
ture  palmed  on  the  world  ?  The  true  reason  is,  that  the  testimony 
for  the  facts  recorded  in  the  gospels  cannot  be  impugned  by  direct 
attack.  There  is  confessedly  no  counter  testimony.  There  are  no 
evidences  of  fraud  or  ill-design,  in  the  books  themselves.  The  his¬ 
torians  appear  to  be  honest  men,  and  continually  speak  and  act  as 
if  they  had  the  fullest  assurance  of  what  they  relate.  They  resort 
to  no  artifice  or  finesse.  They  use  no  arts  to  gain  popularity,  or  to 
accommodate  themselves  to  the  prejudices  of  the  people.  They  are 
so  impartial,  that  they  conceal  none  of  those  things  which  were  un¬ 
favorable  to  their  ow'n  character ;  but  freely  acknowledge  their  own 
faults  and  errors.  Impostors,  in  the  circumstances  of  the  apostles, 
never  could  have  devised  such  an  artless  story ;  they  never  could 
have  concealed  so  perfectly  their  own  true  character  and  design  ; 
and  they  could  never  have  produced  compositions  of  so  great  ex¬ 
cellence.  Let  any  man  compare  the  genuine  gospels  with  those 
spurious  ones  which  were  afterwards  circulated,  under  the  names 
of  the  apostles  and  apostolic  men,  and  he  will  be  struck  with  the 
remarkable  diflference ;  and  yet,  as  far  as  relates  to  natural  abilities 
and  learning,  it  is  probable,  that  these  latter  writers  were  fully 
equal  to  the  evangelists.  It  is  truly  wonderful,  that  uneducated 
men  should  have  written  histories  so  dignified  unimpassioned, 
simple,  and  free  from  weaknesses  and  puerilities.  Nothing  can  be 
farther  removed  from  an  artfully  contrived  imposture,  than  the  gos¬ 
pels  of  the  four  Evangelists. 

But  let  us,  for  a  moment,  assume  the  hypothesis,  that  the  Chris¬ 
tian  religion  is  a  cunningly  devised  fable.  Let  us  take  the  ground 
occupied  by  the  deist,  and  let  us  reason  on  the  subject,  upon  these 
principles.  And  here  we  are  at  liberty  to  suppose  any  one  of  seve¬ 
ral  things,  still  taking  it  for  granted,  that  the  whole  narrative  is  false, 
so  fi\r  as  miracles  are  concerned.  In  the  first  place,  then,  let  us  sup¬ 
pose  that  no  such  person  as  Jesus  Christ  ever  lived  upon  the  earth ; 
but  that  the  whole  history  from  beginning  to  end  is  a  forgery.  The 
difficulty  on  this  hypothesis  will  be  to  account  for  the  existence  of 
the  Christian  church,  and  for  the  reception  of  the  gospels  as  true 
history ;  for,  fix  on  what  period  you  please,  as  that  in  which  the  im¬ 
postor  began  to  publish  the  narrative  respecting  the  birth,  life,  death 
and  resurrection  of  Christ,  it  would  seem  altogether  impossible, 
when  the  circumstances  are  well  considered,  to  conceive,  how  such 
an  enterprise  should  succeed.  Indeed,  upon  this  supposition,  the 


PRELIMINARY  DISCOURSE. 


23 

New  Testament  would  have  carried  its  own  refutation  on  its  face; 
for  it  testifies  that  the  church  began  to  be  gathered  immediately 
upon  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  had  its  commencement  at  Jeru¬ 
salem.  Now  on  the  foregoing  hypothesis,  the  publishers  of  this  his¬ 
tory  began  their  preaching  near  to  the  time  and  at  the  place  where 
he  was  said  to  have  lived  and  to  have  performed  all  the  mighty 
W'orks  which  are  recorded  in  the  gospels.  Let  us  imagine,  then,  an 
impostor  announcing  these  as  facts  at  Jerusalem;  as  facts  which 
had  lately  occurred,  and  which  were  witnessed  by  thousands — 
would  not  every  man,  woman,  and  child  have  exclaimed :  “  This 
whole  story  is  false — these  things  could  not  have  happened  without 
our  hearing  or  knowing  something  of  them.  What  an  audacious 
falsehood !  He  pretends  that  for  a  long  time  this  person,  whom  he 
calls  Jesus  Christ,  resided  among  us,  and  preached  his  doctrines 
pubhcly,  and  wrought  stupendous  miracles ;  but  we  know  all  this  to 
be  false — a  barefaced  imposture,  unsupported  by  the  shadow  of 
evidence.” 

And  if  we  assume  the  ground,  that  the  attempt  was  made  at  any 
other  period,  or  in  any  other  place,  the  absurd  consequences  flowing 
from  this  hypothesis  will  be  equally  manifest.  Deists,  therefore, 
have  not  commonly  been  fond  of  taldng  this  ground,  although  it  is 
far  the  most  consistent  deistical  hypothesis ;  for  if  you  admit  that 
part  of  the  history  which  contains  events  not  miraculous,  you  can 
hardly  avoid  receiving  these  also,  so  closely  are  they  interwoven  to¬ 
gether,  and  dependent  on  each  other.  Volney,  L’Aquinio,  and  a  few 
others,  in  the  time  of  the  French  revolution,  boldly  advocated  this 
theory,  and  denied  that  any  such  persons  as  Jesus  Christ  or  his  apos¬ 
tles  ever  lived  in  the  world.  Now  as  I  said,  this  scheme  is  the  most 
consistent  for  the  rejecters  of  Christianity ;  but  is  it  rational  ?  is  it 
credible?  I  could  persuade  myself  of  the  reality  of  a  thousand  well 
attested  miracles,  before  I  could  believe  that  the  whole  world  has 
been  deceived  in  such  a  matter.  Indeed,  it  would  at  one  stroke  de¬ 
stroy  all  the  credibility  of  history ;  for  if  Jesus  Christ  never  existed, 
from  w'hom  such  a  series  of  events  have  flowed  down  to  our  own 
times,  how  can  we  be  satisfied  that  any  man  whose  exploits  are  re¬ 
corded  in  history  ever  lived  ?  According  to  this,  Volney  might  have 
saved  himself  the  trouble  of  accounting  for  the  ruin  of  ancient 
cities  and  empires ;  for  perhaps,  they  never  existed.  True,  he  saw 
the  splendid  ruins  of  Palmyra ;  but  these  exquisitely  wrought  pil¬ 
lars  might  possibly  have  been  a  mere  freak  of  nature,  in  one  of  her 


24 


DR.  ALEXANDER'S 


wild  moods.  Rational  belief  always  lies  in  the  midst  between  two 
absurdities.  While  the  deist  shuns  what  he  calls  the  weak  credulity 
of  believing  in  miracles,  he  falls  into  the  monstrous  absurdity  of  de¬ 
nying  all  testimony.  And  in  this  case  he  can  be  confronted,  not  only 
with  the  testimony  of  Christians,  but  with  that  of  Heathen  and 
Jewdsh  writers.  Tacitus,  Suetonius,  and  Pliny,  all  bear  ample- 
testimony  against  this  visionary  theory.  The  first  of  these  lived 
during  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era.  His  character  as  an 
historian  stands  too  high  to  need  any  eulogium  or  description.  After 
giving  an  account  of  the  terrible  fire  by  which  a  large  part  of  the 
city  of  Rome  was  consumed,  and  of  the  exertions  made  to  rebuild 
and  beautify  the  city,  he  adds,  “But  neither  by  human  aid,  nor  by 
the  cosily  largesses  by  which  he  attempted  to  propitiate  the  gods, 
was  the  prince  able  to  remove  from  himself  the  infamy  w'hich  had 
attached  to  him  in  the  opinion  of  all,  for  having  ordered  the  con¬ 
flagration.  To  suppress  this  rumor,  therefore,  Nero  caused  others  to 
be  accused,  on  whom  he  inflicted  exquisite  torments,  who  were  al¬ 
ready  hated  by  the  people  for  their  crimes,  and  were  vulgarly  de¬ 
nominated  Christians.  This  name  they  derived  from  Christ  their 
leader,  who  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius  was  put  to  death  as  a  criminal, 
while  Pontius  Palate  was  procurator.  This  destructive  superstition, 
repressed  for  a  while,  again  broke  out,  and  spread  not  only  through 
Judea  where  it  originated,  but  reached  this  city  also,  into  which 
flow  all  things  that  are  vile  and  abominable,  and  where  they  are 
encouraged.  At  first,  they  only  were  seized  who  confessed  that 
they  belonged  to  this  sect ;  and  afterwards  a  vast  multitude,  by  the 
information  of  these,  who  were  condemned,  not  so  much  for  the 
crime  of  burning  the  city,  as  for  hatred  of  the  human  race.  These, 
clothed  in  the  skins  of  wild  beasts,  were  exposed  to  derision,  and 
were  either  torn  to  pieces  by  dogs,  or  were  affixed  to  crosses ;  or 
when  the  day-light  was  past,  were  set  on  fire,  that  they  might  serve 
instead  of  lamps  for  the  night.” 

Suetonius  lived  also  at  the  close  of  the  first  and  beginning  of 
the  second  century.  In  his  life  of  Claudius  the  emperor,  he  has 
these  words,  “  He  banished  the  Jews  from  Rome  who  were  con¬ 
tinually  raising  disturbances,  Christ  (Chrestus)  being  their  leader.” 
And  in  the  life  of  Nero,  he  says,  “The  Christians  were  punished,  a 
sort  of  men  of  a  new  and  magical  religion.” 

But  there  is  nothing  among  the  testimonies  of  Heathen  writers 
of  this  period  so  full  and  satisfactory,  with  regard  to  the  existence 


PRELIMINARY  DISCOURSE. 


25 


and  wide  spread  of  Christianity,  as  the  Letter  of  Pliny  the  Younger, 
a  translation  of  which,  therefore,  I  will  here  insert,  although  it  has 
been  often  published. 

“  Pliny  to  the  emperor  Trajan  wisheth  health,  &c.  It  is  my  cus¬ 
tom,  Sir,  to  refer  all  things  to  you  of  which  I  entertain  any  doubt; 
for  who  can  better  direct  me  in  my  hesitation  or  instruct  my  igno¬ 
rance  ?  I  was  never  before  present  at  any  of  the  trials  of  Christians ; 
so  that  I  am  ignorant  both  of  the  matter  to  be  inquired  into,  and  of 
the  nature  of  the  punishment  which  should  be  inflicted,  and  to 
what  length  the  investigation  is  to  be  extended.  I  have,  moreover, 
been  in  great  uncertainty,  whether  any  difference  ought  to  be  made 
on  account  of  age,  betw^een  the  young  and  tender,  and  the  robust ; 
and  also  whether  any  place  should  be  allowed  fcr  repentance  and 
pardon ;  or  whether  those  who  have  once  been  Christians  should  be 
punished,  although  they  have  now  ceased  to  be  such,  and  w'hether 
punishment  should  be  inflicted  merely  on  account  of  the  name 
W'here  no  crimes  are  charged,  or  whether  crimes  connected  with 
the  name  are  the  proper  object  of  punishment.  This,  however,  is 
the  method  which  I  have  pursued  in  regard  to  those  who  were 
brought  before  me  as  Christians.  I  interrogated  them  whether  they 
were  Christians ;  and  upon  their  confessing  that  they  were,  I  put 
the  question  to  them  a  second  and  a  third  time ;  threatening  them 
with  capital  punishment ;  and  when  they  persisted  in  their  confes¬ 
sion,  I  ordered  them  to  be  led  away  to  execution :  for  whatever 
might  be  the  nature  of  their  crime,  I  could  not  doubt  that  perverse¬ 
ness  and  inflexible  obstinacy  deserve  to  be  punished.  There  were 
j  others  addicted  to  the  same  insanity,  whom,  because  they  w’ere  Ro- 
j  man  citizens,  I  have  noted  down  to  be  sent  to  the  city.  In  a  short 
space,  the  crime  diffusing  itself,  as  is  common,  a  great  variety  of 
cases  have  fallen  under  my  cognizance.  An  anonymous  libel  w^as 
exhibited  to  me,  containing  the  names  of  many  persons  who  denied 
that  they  were  Christians  or  ever  had  been ;  and  as  an  evidence  of 
their  sincerity,  they  joined  me  in  an  address  to  the  gods,  and  to  your 
image,  which  I  had  ordered  to  be  brought  along  with  the  images  of 
the  gods  for  this  very  purpose. — Moreover,  they  sacrificed  with 
i  wine  and  frankincense,  and  blasphemed  the  name  of  Christ ;  none 
'  of  which  things  can  those  who  are  really  Christians  be  constrained 
I  to  do.  Therefore  I  judged  it  proper  to  dismiss  them.  Others  named 
by  the  informer,  at  first  confessed  themselves  to  be  Christians  and 

afterwards  denied  it ;  and  some  asserted,  that  although  they  had 
C 


26 


DR.  ALEXANDER’S 


been  Christians,  they  had  ceased  to  be  such,  for  more  than  three 
years,  and  some  as  much  as  twenty  years.  All  these  worshipped 
your  image  and  the  statues  of  the  gods,  and  execrated  Christ.  Bui 
they  affirmed,  that  this  was  the  sum  of  their  fault  or  error,  that  they 
were  accustomed,  on  a  stated  day,  to  meet  together  before  day,  tt 
sing  a  hymn  to  Christ  in  concert,  as  to  a  God,  and  to  bind  them 
selves  by  a  solemn  oath  not  to  commit  any  wickedness — but  on  the 
contrary  to  abstain  from  theft,  robbery,  and  adultery — also,  never  to 
violate  tneir  promise,  nor  deny  a  pledge  committed  to  them.  These 
things  being  performed,  it  was  their  custom  to  separate ;  and  to 
meet  again  at  a  promiscuous,  innocent  meal;  which,  however,  they 
had  omitted,  from  the  time  of  the  publication  of  my  edict,  by  which, 
according  to  your  orders,  I  forbad  assemblies  of  this  sort.  On  receiv¬ 
ing  this  account,  I  judged  it  to  be  the  more  necessary  to  examine  by 
torture,  two  females,  who  were  called  deaconesses.  But  I  dis¬ 
covered  nothing  except  a  depraved  and  immoderate  superstition. 
Whereupon,  suspending  further  judicial  proceedings,  I  have  re¬ 
course  to  you  for  advice ;  for  it  has  appeared  to  me,  that  the  subject 
is  highly  deserving  of  consideration,  especially  on  account  of  the 
great  number  of  persons  whose  lives  are  put  into  jeopardy.  Many 
persons  of  all  ages,  sexes,  and  conditions  are  accused,  and  many 
more  will  be  in  the  same  situation ;  for  the  contagion  of  this  super¬ 
stition  has  not  merely  pervaded  the  cities,  but  also  all  villages  and 
country  places ;  yet  it  seems  to  me  that  it  might  be  restrained  and 
corrected.  It  is  a  matter  of  fact,  that  the  temples  which  were  al¬ 
most  deserted  begin  again  to  be  frequented ;  and  the  sacred  solem¬ 
nities  which  had  been  long  intermitted  are  again  attended;  and 
victims  for  the  altars  are  now  readily  sold,  which,  a  while  ago,  were 
almost  without  purchasers.  Whence  it  is  easy  to  conjecture  what  a 
multitude  of  men  might  be  reclaimed,  if  only  the  door  to  repent¬ 
ance  was  left  open.” 

The  answer  of  the  emperor  Trajan  to  this  remarkable  letter  of 
Pliny  is  also  still  extant ;  and  there  has  never  been  a  doubt  raised 
respecting  the  genuineness  of  either  of  them. 

“  Trajan  to  Pliny — Health  and  happiness. 

“You  have  taken  the  right  method,  my  Pliny,  in  dealing  with  those 
who  have  been  brought  before  you  as  Christians ;  for  it  is  impossible 
to  establish  any  universal  rule  which  will  apply  to  all  cases.  They 
should  not  be  sought  after:  but  when  they  are  brought  before  you 
and  convicted,  they  must  be  punished.  Nevertheless,  if  any  one 


PRELIMINARY  DISCOURSE. 


27 


deny  that  he  is  a  Christian,  and  confirm  his  assertion  by  his  con¬ 
duct  ;  that  is,  by  worshipping  our  gods,  although  he  may  be  sus¬ 
pected  of  having  been  one  in  time  past ;  let  him  obtain  pardon  on 
repentance.  But  in  no  case  permit  a  libel  against  any  one  to  be  re¬ 
ceived,  unless  it  be  signed  by  the  person  who  presents  it,  for  that 
would  be  a  dangerous  precedent,  and  in  nowise  suitable  to  the 
present  age.” 

From  these  epistles,  written  at  the  very  commencement  of  the 
second  century,  we  learn  how  rapidly  and  extensively  Christianity, 
notwithstanding  all  opposition,  had  spread  over  the  Roman  empire. 
Long  before  Pliny  wrote,  the  temples  and  sacrifices  had  been 
almost  forsaken;  and  even  now  the  multitude  implicated  in  the 
charge  of  being  Christians  was  so  great,  that  he  suspended  all  judi¬ 
cial  proceedings  against  them,  until  he  should  consult  the  emperor 
as  to  what  was  proper  to  be  done. 

It  must  by  this  time  be  sufficiently  evident,  that  they  undertake 
the  defence  of  a  desperate  cause,  who  maintain  the  hypothesis,  that 
such  a  person  as  Christ  never  existed,  but  that  he  is  merely  a  ficti¬ 
tious  being. 

Let  us  then  in  the  next  place  inquire,  what  M’ill  be  the  conse¬ 
quences  of  supposing  that  Jesus  Christ  did  live  and  teach  in  Judea 
about  eighteen  centuries  ago,  and  that  he  was  apprehended  by  the 
Jewish  rulers  and  priests,  and  at  their  instigation  was  crucified 
under  the  procuratorship  of  Pontius  Pilate,  in  the  reign  of  the 
emperor  Tiberius ;  but  that  all  that  is  recorded  in  the  gospels  re¬ 
specting  his  divine  mission,  his  miraculous  birth,  his  wonderful 
works,  and  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  was  invented  by  certain 
fraudulent  disciples  after  the  death  of  their  Master.  This  I  suppose 
is  the  commonly  received  theory  of  deists,  and  if  it  cannot  stand 
the  test  of  a  thorough  scrutiny,  their  cause  is  manifestly  untenable, 
and  should  be  abandoned.  Here  again,  there  may  be  a  choice  in 
the  selection  of  the  period  when  these  miracles  began  to  be  pub¬ 
lished,  and  these  gospels  to  be  received.  If  this  is  said  to  have  oc¬ 
curred  immediately  after  the  death  of  Christ,  the  same  difficulties 
press  on  the  scheme,  which  were  shown  to  follow  upon  the  former 
hypothesis :  that  is,  if  such  an  imposture  had  been  attempted,  the 
falsehood  of  the  history  would  have  been  evident  to  all  the  world. 
To  one  making  such  declarations  at  Jerusalem,  any  one  of  the  peo¬ 
ple  might  have  replied,  “  The  person  concerning  whom  you  testify 
was  known  to  us.  He  spent  much  of  his  time  in  this  city,  and  was 


23 


DR,  ALEXANDER’S 

a  teacher  and  public  preacher,  and  was  seized  at  the  feast  of  the 
passover  by  our  rulers,  and  delivered  over  to  Pilate  as  a  seditious 
and  dangerous  person ;  but  as  to  what  you  say  about  his  raising  the 
dead,  giving  sight  to  the  blind,  health  to  the  sick,  and  performing 
other  wonderful  works,  there  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  it,  and  such 
things  were  never  heard  of  before — and,  moreover,  these  books 
which  you  wish  to  palm  upon  us  are  utterly  unworthy  of  credit, 
and  are  replete  with  falsehoods,  known  to  be  such  by  all  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  this  land.  How  could  any  imp)Ostor  have  been  successful 
in  gaining  credence  to  his  imposture  in  such  circumstances  ? 

But  the  deist  will  select  a  later  period  for  the  commencement  of 
the  fraud.  Suppose  we  say,  a  hundred  years  after  Christ  was  cru¬ 
cified  ,  we  cannot  bring  it  lower  down  without  encumbering  the 
hypothesis  with  greater  difficulties  and  absurdities  than  by  choosing 
this  time,  on  account  of  the  testimonies  of  numerous  Christian 
writers  in  corroboration  of  the  gospel-history.  A  hundred  years, 
then,  after  the  death  of  Christ,  some  persons  undertake  to  give  out 
and  publish  in  writing  that  he  performed  those  mighty  works,  which 
none  before  had  heard  a  whisper  of.  This  imposture  could  not 
then  have  been  by  the^ instrumentality  of  the  immediate  followers 
of  Christ,  for  these  must  have  been  dead.  The  question  therefore 
naturally  arises,  did  the  Christian  Church  exist  before  this  time 
and  on  what  principles  was  it  founded  ?  If  it  did  not  exist  before! 
then  the  book  now  published  would  carry  its  falsehood  on  its  face! 
as  It  describes  all  the  particulars  of  the  first  planting  of  the  church 
at  Jerusalem,  and  its  rapid  extension  over  the  world.  If  the  church 
did  exist  a  fact  capable  of  the  clearest  proof— men  must  hrfve  be¬ 
come  the  disciples  of  Christ  without  any  persuasion  that  he  was  a 
divine  messenger,  or  possessed  any  extraordinary  commission :  yea, 
the  first  Christians  must  have  forsaken  the  religious  customs  of 
their  forefathers,  and  exposed  themselves  to  every  species  of  perse¬ 
cution  for  the  sake  of  a  man  who  was  crucified  as  a  malefactor, 
and  without  any  belief  that  he  had  risen  again  and  was  now  alive. 
This  indeed  gives  us  a  new  view  of  the  origin  of  Christianity,  and 
a  new  view  of  human  nature  also ;  but  is  it  a  reasonable  hypothe¬ 
sis  ?  Can  any  man  believe  it  ?  How,  upon  these  principles,  can 
we  account  for  the  extraordinary  progress  of  Christianity  ?  About 
this  time,  it  has  been  shown  from  the  most  respectable  heathen  his- 
tonans,  this  religion  had  extended  over  Asia  Minor,  and  had 
reached  Rome :  but  by  what  means  was  this  effected,  when.  ac« 


PRELIMINARY  DISCOURSE. 


29 


cording  to  the  hypothesis,  there  was  not  a  pretence  of  any  thing 
miraculous?  And  how  did  these  cunning  impostors  who  now 
arose,  contrive  to  persuade  the  Christian  church  that  their  religion 
was  founded  on  these  miraculous  facts,  which  they  had  never 
heard  of  before  ?  And  how  did  they  bring  it  about  that  at  once 
these  forged  books  should  be  received  by  every  portion  of  the 
church  as  the  writings  of  the  apostles  and  immediate  followers  of 
Christ?  How  wonderful,  that  a  society  existing  in  many  different 
countries  should  be  persuaded  henceforth  to  adopt  an  entirely  new 
creed,  and  to  appeal  to  books  as  containing  the  true  origin  of  their 
religion,  which  w’ere  just  now  written  by  impostors,  and  replete 
with  extravagant  falsehoods !  The  whole  thing  is  incredible,  and 
indeed  impossible.  Such  an  imposture  could  not  have  been  suc¬ 
cessful.  It  is  not  more  certain  that  Christianity  now  exists,  than 
that  the  belief  of  miracles  was  coeval  with  its  origin.  A  Christian 
without  belief  of  the  divine  mission  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  is  a 
monstrous  absurdity.  And  why  did  not  the  early  enemies  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  such  as  Celsus,  Porphyry  and  Julian,  lay  open  the  impos¬ 
ture  ?  Why  did  they  not  utterly  deny  the  facts  recorded  in  the 
gospel  ?  This  they  dared  not  do.  Instead  of  this,  they  set  them¬ 
selves  to  account  for  these  wonderful  works  by  magic  ;  as  did  also 
the  Jewish  doctors  whose  opinions  are  in  the  Talmud.  Tliis  fact 
shows  most  conclusively  that  in  the  early  ages  the  current  of  uni¬ 
versal  tradition,  as  well  as  written  records,  was  so  strong  in  favor 
of  the  miracles  of  Christ,  that  they  could  not  be  successfully  de¬ 
nied.  This  led  the  opposers  of  the  gospel  to  pretend  that  other 
men  had  performed  as  great  miracles  as  J esus.  And,  perhaps,  the 
deist  could  not  now  adopt  a  wiser  course  than  to  admit  the  mi¬ 
raculous  facts,  and  reason  against  therh  on  the  same  principles  as 
the  old  impugners  of  the  Christian  religion. 

From  every  view  which  we  can  take  of  this  subject,  it  is  evident, 
that  whether  the  gospel  be  true  or  not,  it  is  supported  by  all  the 
testimony  and  by  all  the  collateral  evidence  which  it  could  have, 
if  it  were  true.  That  is,  we  must  believe  this  history,  or  relinquish 
the  principles  of  reason  which  guide  us  in  other  cases. 

The  historical  evidence  is  the  first  great  obstacle  in  the  way  of 
adopting  the  deistical  hypothesis ;  the  second  is,  that  the  purity, 
consistency,  and  moral  excellence  of  these  writings  cannot  be  re¬ 
conciled  with  the  idea  that  they  are  the  works  of  vile  impostors. 
It  is  an  old  and  trite  argument,  that  such  a  book  as  the  New  Testa- 
C  2 


L 


30 


DR.  ALEXANDER’S 


ment  could  not  be  the  production  of  bad  men,  because  it  is  stamped 
with  so  much  holiness,  and  is  replete  with  such  excellent  views  of 
duty  and  pure  morality,  that  men  of  depraved  minds  could  have 
possessed  neither  the  ability  nor  the  will  to  be  the  authors  of  it. 
What  wicked  man  would  have  ever  thought  of  inventing  such  dis¬ 
courses  as  those  of  Christ  ?  Or  how  can  it  be  conceived,  that  an 
impostor,  in  whom  there  must  be  a  combination  of  the  most  de¬ 
grading  vices,  could  have  given  such  pure  and  perfect  lessons  of 
morality,  as  those  contained  in  the  Epistles  of  the  Apostles  ? 

If,  therefore,  all  historical  documents  were  buried  in  oblivion,  there 
is  that  internal  light  beaming  from  every  page  of  this  sacred  volume, 
which  will  ever  recommend  it  to  the  approbation  of  the  good.  And 
this  leads  me  to  a  remark,  which  may  seem  to  be  rather  invidious, 
but  which  is  supported  by  an  overpowering  weight  of  evidence,' 
that  the  true  cause  of  deism  is  to  be  sought,  not  in  the  weakness 
of  the  evidence  of  divine  revelation,  nor  in  the  recondite  nature 
of  the  arguments  by  which  it  is  supported;  but  in  the  unhappy 
state  of  mind  with  which  the  subject  is  approached.  A  heart 
glowing  with  love  to  God  and  man ;  in  which  all  must  acknow¬ 
ledge  moral  excellence  in  man  consists;  would  so  prepare  the 
mind  to  appreciate  the  evidences  of  Christianity,  both  external  and 
internal:  that  I  am  persuaded  nothing  more  would  be  necessary  to 
produce  a  strong  faith  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament;  as 
not  only  containing  a  true  and  faithful  history,  but  as  being  given 
by  divine  inspiration,  and  therefore,  an  infallible  rule  to  guide  us  in 
all  matters  of  truth  and  duty. 

But  It  IS  now  time  that  I  should  give  some  account  of  the  trea¬ 
tises  included  in  the  following  volume.  In  the  selection  of  these 
the  writer  has  had  no  concern,  but  he  approves  of  the  plan  of  the 
editor,  and  is  of  opinion  that  by  comprising  so  many  works  of 
standard  excellence  in  one  convenient  duodecimo,  he  will  be  ren¬ 
dering  a  real  service  to  the  cause  of  revealed  religion,  and  will 
turnish  a  desired  accommodation  to  students  of  theology;  and 

to  others  who  are  obliged  to  regard  economy  in  the  purchase 
of  books. 

The  grand  problem  which  deists  have  hitherto  failed  to  solve,  is, 
to  account  for  the  existence  and  rapid  progress  of  Christianity! 
No  man  was  better  fitted  to  remove  this  difficulty,  had  it  been  pos¬ 
sible,  than  Edward  Gibbon,  Esq.,  who  had  access  to  all  the  sources 


PRELIMINARY  DISCOURSE. 


31 


of  information  which  could  be  applied  to  the  elucidation  of  this 
point.  And  Christianity  is  so  thoroughly  incorporated  with  the 
latter  part  of  the  history  of  the  Roman  empire,  that  the  historian 
of  this  period  is  laid  under  a  necessity  of  giving  some  opinion 
respecting  the  origin  and  progress  of  a  system  which  soon  gave 
complexion  to  all  the  transactions  of  the  civilized  world.  Although 
Gibbon  hated  the  Christian  religion,  and  would  willingly  have  lent 
his  aid  to  banish  it  from  the  earth  ;  yet  he  was  too  well  aware  of 
the  difficulty  of  the  subject,  to  venture  a  direct  and  open  attack  on 
this  citadel  of  truth,  which  had  already  repelled  with  triumph  so 
many  assaults.  His  attempt,  therefore,  was  to  account  for  this 
extraordinary  fact  by  referring  it  to  natural  causes.  This,  indeed, 
was  a  very  indirect  method  of  attaining  his  end ;  for  even  if  the 
reasons  assigned  had  been  sufficient  to  account  for  the  acknow¬ 
ledged  fact,  yet  these  might  not  have  been  the  real  causes.  It  is  a 
sound  rule  of  reasoning,  that  the  causes  which  we  assign  to  ac¬ 
count  for  effects  must  not  only  be  adequate,  but  true.  If  the  con¬ 
version  of  the  world  to  Christianity  could  possibly  be  accounted 
for  without  supposing  the  interposition  of  a  supernatural  power ; 
it  might  nevertheless  have  been  the  effect  of  miraculous  power. 
But  if  he  had  succeeded  in  his  attempt,  the  arguments  for  a  divine 
origin  of  our  holy  religion  would  have  been  greatly  diminished ; 
for  it  is  a  good  rule,  that  what  can  be  accounted  for  by  natural 
causes,  ought  not  to  be  attributed  to  supernatural  powers.  It  is 
however,  a  strong  presumptive  proof  in  favor  of  the  historical 
evidence  of  the  gospels,  that  such  a  man,  with  the  stores  of  an¬ 
cient  knowledge  open  before  him,  did  not  venture  to  attack  it ; 
either  by  showing  that  the  testimony  was  inadequate,  or  by  ad¬ 
ducing  other  evidence  to  invalidate  that  wffiich  has  been  given  in 
support  of  Christianity.  His  forbearance,  it  is  certain,  was  not 
ow’ing  to  a  want  of  wall,  but  to  a  want  of  power ;  and  what 
Gibbon  perceived  to  be  impracticable,  in  vain  may  any  other  in¬ 
fidel  undertake  to  perform.  It  cannot  be  said,  that  the  historian 
W'ent  out  of  his  w'ay  to  meet  this  question  :  he  could  not  avoid  it. 
It  lay  so  directly  in  his  path,  that  he  was  obliged  to  acknowdedge 
the  divine  origin  of  Christianity,  or  to  account  for  its  success  in 
some  other  way.  The  latter  course  he  chose  to  pursue ;  and  we 
have  the  result  of  his  inquiries,  or  more  properly  his  conjectures, 
in  the  XV.  and  XVI.  Chapters  of  his  Decline  and  Fall  of  the 
Roman  Empire.  In  examining  this  hypothesis  the  intelligent  and 


k 


32 


DR.  ALEXANDER 

impartial  reader  cannot  but  be  struck  with  the  uncertainty  and  also 
the  inadequacy  of  the  causes  assigned  for  this  extraordinary  moral 
revolution,  by  which  the  whole  aspect  and  condition  of  the  civil¬ 
ized  world  has  been  entirely  changed.  It  is  a  matter  of  some  sur¬ 
prise,  that  a  mind  so  perspicacious,  and  so  richly  furnished,  should 
have  been  so  far  satisfied  with  the  reasons  assigned  as  to  stake  liis 
reputation  as  a  man  of  sense  and  candor  upon  them,  so  as  to  con¬ 
sent  to  give  them  to  the  world,  as  an  integral  part  of  his  splendid 
work.  It  is,  however,  no  matter  of  wonder  that  he  did  not  pro¬ 
duce  more  satisfactory  reasons  for  this  grand  phenomenon.  The 
truth  is,  the  more  closely  the  circumstances  of  the  case  are  inves¬ 
tigated,  the  more  manifest  it  will  become,  that  nothing  better  can 
be  said.  Infidelity  has  here  done  her  best,  and  if  she  has  failed  to 
achieve  a  victory,  the  blame  should  not  be  laid  on  her  favorite 
champion,  but  on  the  cause,  which  did  not  admit  of  a  more  plau¬ 
sible  defence.  No  sooner  was  the  History  of  the  Decline  and 
Fali,  published,  than  a  host  of  assailants  entered  the  field,  among 
whom,  however.  Doctor  Watson,  then  Regius  Professor  of  Divin¬ 
ity  at  Cambridge,  and  afterwards  bishop  of  Llandaffi  stood  pre-em¬ 
inent.  And  while  G-ibbon  treated  his  other  antagonists  rather 
cavalierly,  he  spoke  of  Watson  with  great  respect.  His  work 
against  Gibbon  was  published  in  the  form  of  Letters  to  the  histo¬ 
rian,  and  entitled  An  Apology  for  Christianity.  This  first 
Apology  of  our  author  has  been  so  long  out  of  print,  or  at  least  so 
little  circulated  in  this  country,  that  even  young  men  of  learning, 
who  have  been  attentive  to  the  progress  of  this  controversy,  are 
scarcely  aware  that  such  a  book  exists.  It  was  judicious,  there¬ 
fore,  to  give  it  a  conspicuous  place  in  this  selection.  All  the 
friends  of  Christianity  who  are  familiar  with  Dr.  Watson’s  later 
work,  in  vindication  of  the  Bible,  will  be  gratified  to  see  any  thing 
else  on  this  subject  from  his  able  pen.  To  this  Apology  for 
Christianity  is  appended  An  Address  to  Scoffers,  which  hgs 
been  pronounced  by  good  judges  not  to  be  surpassed  in  eloquence 
and  force,  by  any  composition  in  the  English  language.  To  rescue 
this  excellent  address  from  oblivion,  is  itself  an  object  of  no  small 
importance.  And  it  is  a  composition  as  much  adapted  to  our  own 
times,  as  to  the  period  when  it  was  first  published. 

Watson’s  second  apology,  entitled  An  Apology  for  the  Bi¬ 
ble,  is  a  work  much  better  knovm  in  this  country  than  the  former. 
Phis  was  written  in  answer  to  the  second  part  of  Paine’s  Age  of 


PRELIMINARY  DISCOURSE. 


33 


Reason.  Paine  had,  by  his  political  Essays,  which  were  well 
suited  to  the  spirit  of  the  times,  acquired  a  high  reputation  in  this 
country  as  a  clear  and  forcible  writer.  There  had  never  appeared 
a  work  in  favor  of  infidelity  so  well  adapted  to  diffuse  the  poison 
through  the  mass  of  society.  His  style  was  perspicuous,  pointed, 
and  energetic ;  and  was  spiced  with  that  species  of  profane  ridi¬ 
cule,  which  is  always  found  to  be  remarkably  congenial  with  de¬ 
praved  minds.  Moreover,  his  apparent  exemption  from  all  consci¬ 
entious  scruples,  with  an  imposing  confidence  in  the  truth  of  his 
owm  opinions,  recommended  his  work  to  multitudes,  whose  con¬ 
stant  effort  had  been  to  free  themselves  from  the  shackles  of  con. 
science,  the  power  of  which  was  chiefly  owdng  to  the  remains  of  a 
religious  belief  Such  men  exulted  in  finding  their  own  half- 
formed  opinions  and  wishes  boldly  brought  out,  and  the  truths 
which  they  hated,  because  they  were  annoyed  by  them,  turned  into 
ridicule.  It  is  impossible  to  calculate  how  much  evil  was  pro¬ 
duced  by  the  profane  writings  of  this  impure  and  intemperate  man. 
Seldom  has  a  defender  of  the  faith  stepped  forth  more  opportunely 
than  did  bishop  Watson,  on  this  occasion.  Former  infidels  had  for 
the  most  part  fought  in  disguise ;  they  did  not  openly  declare 
themselves  to  be  the  enemies  of  the  Bible.  Their  reasonings  were 
often  abstruse  and  metaphysical ;  or  so  obscure,  and  remote  from 
common  appi'ehension,  that  their  books  w-'ere  read  only  by  a  few 
,  of  the  learned.  But  here  was  a  most  open,  undisguised,  and  au¬ 
dacious  attack  on  Christianity ;  and  it  was  circulated  with  an  in- 
dustry  not  often  exceeded.  To  counteract  this  popular  and  dan¬ 
gerous  work,  bishop  Watson  composed  his  answer  in  a  perspicuous, 
pleasing,  and  popular  style.  His  extensive  learning  and  intimate 
acquaintance  with  the  subject  enabled  him,  with  manifest  ease,  to 
detect  the  mistakes  and  expose  the  sophistiy  of  Paine,  w'ho  was 
really  an  ignorant  man,  and  so  little  acquainted  with  the  subject  on 
which  he  undertook  to  write,  that  when  he  published  his  first  part 
of  the  Age  of  Reason,  he  seems  never  to  have  read  the  Bible  ; 
and  acknowledges  that  he  had  no  copy  at  hand.  He  afterwards 
procured  a  Bible,  and  in  some  way,  w'ent  over  it,  gleaning  up  such 
stale  objections  and  arguments,  as  had  been  answered  a  hundred 
times ;  but  which  he  brought  forward  with  all  the  boasting  of  a 
man  who  had  just  made  a  wonderful  discovery.  ■  Watson,  through¬ 
out  the  work,  maintains  his  dignity  and  treats  his  antagonist  with 
courtesy;  which,  taking  into  view-  Paine’s  profane  raillery,  was  no 


L 


34 


DR.  ALEXANDER’S 


easy  task.  In  only  one  instance  does  he  seem  to  yield  to  a  feeling  , 
of  indignation  ;  and  every  reasonable  man  will  acquit  him  of  un¬ 
due  severity,  when  he  considers  the  provocation  given  by  this  im-  ; 
pure  infidel.  And  on  that  occasion  he  does  no  more  than  apply  to 
him  the  words  of  Paul  to  Elymas  the  sorcerer,  “  O  full  of  all 
subtilty  and  mischief,  thou  child  of  the  devil,  thou  enemy  of  all 
righteousness,  wilt  thou  not  cease  to  pervert  the  right  ways  of 
the  Lord  ?” 

It  is  impossible  to  calculate  how  much  the  Christian  community 
is  indebted  to  bishop  Watson,  for  this  able,  popular,  and  seasonable 
vindication  of  the  Bible,  against  the  most  virulent  and  audacious  I 
assault  ever  made  upon  it.  The  work  was  extensively  circulated,  I 
and  very  generally  read ;  and  in  most  cases  served  as  an  effectual 
antidote  to  the  poison  of  the  Age  of  Reason.  Other  solid  answers 
to  Paine  were  published ;  and  with  a  limited  circulation  were 
useful ;  but  none  of  them  held  any  competition  with  the  Apology 
FOR  THE  Bible  ;  which  quickly  passed  through  numerous  editions, 
both  in  Greht  Britain  and  in  this  country;  and  produced  a  salutary 
effect  far  beyond  any  other  work  of  a  similar  kind,  which  has  been 
published  within  the  recollection  of  the  WTiter.  Since,  however, 
the  heat  of  the  controversy  has  subsided,  this  valuable  work  is  less 
frequently  met  with ;  it  is  therefore  of  importance  that  it  should 
have  a  place  in  a  manual,  where  it  may  be  perused  again  and 
again,  by  the  rising  generation.  And  this  is  the  more  necessary, 
since  a  new  edition  of  “  The  Age  of  Reason”  has  recently  been  I 

published  in  one  of  our  large  cities;  and  as  it  is  evident  that  the 
rancorous  spirit  of  infidelity  will,  as  heretofore,  gather  up  the 
blunted  but  envenomed  shafts  which  have  so  often  been  repelled 
by  the  shield  of  truth,  and  will  continue  to  renew  its  desperate 
assaults  against  the  citadel  of  divine  revelation,  until  the  time 
shall  come  when  the  grand  adversary  and  patron  of  infidelity  shall 
be  driven  from  the  earth  and  confined  to  the  bottomless  pit. 

Some  persons  have  expressed  surprise  and  a  degree  of  dissatis¬ 
faction  at  the  title.  Apology,  which  bishop  Watson  has  chosen  to 
give  to  both  his  vindications  of  divine  revelation.  It  seemed  to 
them  that  this  word  conveyed  the  idea  of  something  defective,  or 
erroneous  ;  and  they  have  been  ready  to  say,  that  neither  Christi¬ 
anity  nor  the  Bible  needed  any  apology.  Now,  it  is  true,  that  our 
English  word  is  so  underetood  by  most  who  hear  it ;  but  according 
to  its  etymology  and  ancient  use,  its  import  is  “a  defence.”  An 


A 


PRELIMINARY  DISCOURSE. 


35 


Apology  is  the  rendering  a  reason  for  any  thing.  And  thus  it  was 
the  usual  name  given  by  the  early  fathers  to  their  defences  of 
Christianity,  .and  to  these  bishop  Watson  doubtless  alludes  in  the 
title  which  he  has  selected. 

There  are  few  books  concerning  which  it  is  more  difficult  to 
speak,  without  being  misunderstood,  than  Soame  Jenyns’s  Inter¬ 
nal  Evidences  of  the  Christian  Religion,  which  occupies  the 
third  place  in  this  collection.  That  the  author  exhibits  those  argu¬ 
ments  here,  which  had  produced  a  full  persuasion  of  the  truth  of 
the  New  Testament  in  his  own  mind,  there  is  little  reason  to 
doubt :  and  that  the  perusal  of  this  little  work  has  wrought  a  sim¬ 
ilar  conviction  in  the  minds  of  many  other  intelligent  persons,  is  a 
fact  of  which  there  is  not  wanting  abundant  proof.  And,  indeed, 
judging  from  the  impression  which  this  luminous  argument  makes 
on  my  own  mind,  I  can  scarcely  conceive  how  any  ingenuous  man 
can  resist  its  force.  It  is  said,  I  know  not  upon  what  authority,  that 
Jenyns  began  to  read  the  New  Testament,  with  the  view  of 
writing  against  it,  but  arose  from  the  perusal  a  confirmed  believer ; 
and  then  gave  his  own  recently  received  views  and  convictions, 
in  this  little  work.  A  tradition  of  the  same  kind  has  been  handed 
down  respecting  several  other  learned  men ;  particularly  the  fine 
classical  scholar  Mr.  West. 

Soame  Jenyns  was,  no  doubt,  an  eccentric  genius,  and  enter¬ 
tained  many  extravagant  opinions,  which  badly  cohere  with  a  sys¬ 
tem  of  Christian  doctrines.  And  even  in  this  little  work  on  the 
Evidences,  which  I  can  cordially  recommend  in  the  main,  I  would 
by  no  means  make  myself  responsible  for  every  opinion  which  the 
author  has  expressed.  There  is  strong  evidence,  however,  to  in¬ 
duce  us  to  believe,  that  this  ingenious  writer  actually  experienced 
the  salutary  efficacy  of  those  truths  which  he  so  ably  defended. 
His  Lectures  on  religious  subjects,  which  were  from  time  to 
time  delivered  to  a  company  of  select  friends,  breathe  so  much  of 
the  spirit  of  genuine  piety,  that  it  is  hard  to  believe  the  writer  was 
not  a  sincere  Christian. 

In  further  attestation  of  the  value  of  this  work  on  The  Inter¬ 
nal  Evidences,  it  may  be  remarked,  that  Paley  refers  to  it  as 
containing  every  thing  which  is  necessary  on  this  branch  of  the 
subject ;  and  accordingly  he  omits  making  any  observations  on 
this  topic. 

The  writer  would  also  mention,  that  he  has  often  heard  it  as- 


36 


DR.  ALEXANDER’S 


serted,  and  never  contradicted,  that  the  late  Patrick  Henry,  the 
celebrated  orator  of  Virginia  and  of  the  American  revolution,  had 
been  in  early  life  skeptical,  but  was  fully  satisfied  of  the  truth  of 
the  Christian  religion,  by  the  perusal  of  this  little  treatise  of  Soame 
Jenyns.  And  it  is  a  well-known  fact,  that  the  work  was  re-print¬ 
ed  in  a  pamphlet  form,  while  he  was  governor  of  Virginia,  and 
was  widely  circulated  through  the  State  ;  and,  as  was  said  and  be¬ 
lieved,  under  his  auspices.  It  is,  at  any  rate,  undoubtedly  true  that 
from  this  period  of  his  life  he  was  the  zealous  and  open  advocate 
of  divine  revelation,  until  his  dying  day.  This  fact  is  not  left  to  be 
handed  down  merely  by  tradition ;  as  he  took  care  to  leave  a  full 
and  explicit  testimony  in  favor  of  Christianity,  inserted  in  his  last 
will  and  testament,  which  is  on  record. 

The  subject  of  the  internal  evidences  has  been  ably  treated, 
by  other  authors.  Fuller,  Sumner,  and  Erskine  have  all  written 
well  on  this  topic  ;  but  by  none  of  these  productions  has  this  little 
work  of  Jenyns  been  at  all  superseded. 

Leslie’s  Easy  Method  with  the  Deists,  occupies  the  fourth 
place  in  this  collection  ;  but  though  least,  it  is  not  the  weakest  in 
argument.  This  little  work  may  be  considered  the  standing  re¬ 
proach  of  deists,  ever  since  it  was  first  published.  It  lays  down 
certain  criteria  of  the  truth  of  historical  facts,  which  it  is  asserted 
are  applicable  to  no  other  than  real  events.  It  is  shown  that  all 
these  marks  of  truth  are  found  to  exist  in  the  Mosaic  and  Evan¬ 
gelical  narratives ;  and  a  challenge  is  given  to  the  infidel  to  ad¬ 
duce  any  statement  of  facts,  known  to  be  false,  to  which  they  do 
apply.  Now  this  is  fairly  bringing  the  subject  to  issue ;  and  if  the 
deist  is  unable  to  show  that  these  circumstances  meet  in  other 
cases,  where  it  is  acknowledged  that  the  story  is  false  or  uncertain, 
then  certainly,  the  verdict  in  the  mind  of  every  impartial  man 
should  be  in  favor  of  the  truth  of  the  Bible  history.  No  answer 
to  this  work,  as  far  as  I  know,  has  ever  been  attempted  ;  and  after 
it  has  been  so  long  before  the  public,  it  may  be  fairly  concluded 
that  no  satisfactory  answer  can  be  given.  Here  then  we  have  a 
demonstration  of  the  truth  of  divine  revelation,  comprised  within  a 
few  pages ;  and  although  it  has  been  often  re-published,  yet  it  can¬ 
not  be  too  frequently  presented  to  the  view  of  the  public,  and  es¬ 
pecially  of  the  rising  generation. 

The  last  treatise  in  this  volume  is  one  concerning  which  it  is 
wholly  unnecessary  for  me  to  speak,  by  way  of  commendation. 


PRELIMINARY  DISCOURSE. 


37 

Paley’s  Evidences  is  a  work,  which  by  its  merit  has  become  a 
text-book  in  the  higher  seminaries  of  learning,  both  in  Great 
Britain,  and  in  this  country ;  and  as  long  as  our  educated  young 
men  are  required  carefully  to  study  this  manual,  there  will  be 
small  danger  of  their  being  led  away  by  the  plausible  but  flimsy 
objections  of  deists.  It  is  of  immense  importance  to  pre-occupy 
the  young  mind  with  just  views  of  the  evidences  of  divine  reve¬ 
lation,  before  they  are  exposed  to  the  pestiferous  assaults  of  infidel¬ 
ity.  Young  men  whose  prepossessions  are  in  favor  of  the  Bible, 
but  who  want  proper  instruction  on  this  subject,  when  they  come 
to  encounter  the  sophistical  arguments  of  skeptics,  either  expe¬ 
rience  a  subversion  of  their  faith,  or  are  thrown  into  distressing 
perplexity.  No  course  of  education  is  complete,  or  even  safe, 
which  does  not  include  a  thorough  examination  of  the  Evidences 
of  the  authenticity  and  inspiration  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  There 
is  danger,  at  present,  of  imbibing  a  sickly  liberality  in  regard  to 
religion,  the  tendency  of  which  is  to  place  truth  and  error  on  an 
equal  footing.  It  is  true,  in  a  country  where  so  many  conflicting 
sects  exist,  it  is  not  expedient  that  the  creed  of  any  one  Christian 
denomination  should  be  inculcated  in  our  public  seminaries,  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  others ;  yet  certainly  the  fundamental  principles 
of  natural  and  revealed  religion,  in  which  all  true  Christians  agree, 
ought  not  to  be  proscribed.  There  is  a  point  beyond  which  con¬ 
cession  cannot  go,  without  an  abandonment  of  the  cause  of  truth, 
and  with  it,  of  all  sound  morality;  for  what  else  but  truth  can 
form  the  basis  of  pure  morality?  However  loud  may  be  the 
clamor  against  sectarianism^  let  us  not  be  moved  by  it  to  abandon 
the  fortress  of  truth ;  and  if  the  Bible  is  rejected,  or  viewed  as  a 
book  of  dubious  authority,  there  remains  no  other  solid  ground  on 
which  the  friends  of  religion  and  morality  can  make  a  stand. 

Few  men  have  ever  lived  who  were  as  well  qualified  to  esti¬ 
mate  the  value  of  historic  evidence,  and  to  form  an  impartial  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  force  of  human  testimony,  as  Doctor  Paley.  His  per¬ 
spicacity  of  intellect,  his  sobriety  of  judgment,  his  unbiassed  love 
of  truth,  and  his  patient  investigation  of  all  circumstances,  fitted 
him  peculiarly  for  the  defence  of  the  great  principles  of  natural 
and  revealed  theology.  If  any  fraud  or  imposture  had  existed  in 
regard  to  the  Christian  religion,  by  which  the  minds  of  others  had 
been  blinded,  it  would  be  difficult,  from  the  whole  catalogue  of 

the  learned,  to  select  a  man  better  suited  to  detect  and  dispel  the 
D  3 


88 


DR.  ALEXANDER’S 


illusion.  He  is  less  profound  than  Butler,  but  his  views  and  rea¬ 
sonings  are  much  more  on  a  level  with  the  understanding  of  the 
bulk  of  mankind.  The  former  collects  and  converges  to  a  focus 
the  feeble  and  scattered  rays  of  light  which  pass  unnoticed  by 
others  ;  the  latter,  neglecting  weak  arguments,  seizes  on  the  strong 
points  of  evidence  in  every  subject,  and  exhibits  them  in  a  light  so 
clear  and  steady,  that  he  carries  along  with  him  the  convictions  of 
every  mind,  not  closed  against  the  force  of  truth,  by  strong  and  in 
veterate  prejudice.  Thus  in  his  Evidences  he  fixes  on  a  single 
fact,  the  truth  of  which  cannot  be  denied ;  namely,  that  in  the 
commencement  of  the  Christian  religion  many  persons  did  volun 
tarily  undergo  the  severest  sufferings  and  persecutions  in  confirma¬ 
tion  of  their  faith  in  this  system.  This  fact,  as  we  have  seen,  is 
fully  attested  by  the  highest  Heathen  as  well  as  Christian  author! 
ties,  and  is  now  questioned  by  none.  On  this  single  point  Paley 
erects  his  battery,  and  his  conclusion  cannot  be  evaded  without 
a  renunciation  of  common  sense,  or  of  the  commonly-received 
laws  of  evidence.  It  detracts  something  from  the  interest,  and  in 
my  opinion,  from  the  effect  of  this  treatise,  that  the  author  con¬ 
sidered  it  necessary  to  descend  to  so  many  minute  details,  in  estab¬ 
lishing  the  authenticity  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment.  For  full  satisfaction  to  the  person  who  wishes  to  go  into  a 
thorough  investigation,  the  testimonies  here  adduced  are  too  je¬ 
june  :  it  would  be  better  to  refer  such  an  inquirer  to  Jones  and 
Lardner  at  once ;  and  for  common  readers,  these  details  only 
serve  to  interrupt  the  argument.  To  others,  however,  this  work 
of  Paley  seems,  in  all  respects,  to  approximate  perfection.  The 
pious  and  philanthropic  Douglas,  of  Scotland,  in  a  late  work,  ex¬ 
presses  it  as  his  opinion,  that  Euclid’s  Elements,  and  Paley’s 
Evidences,  are  the  only  two  treatises  which  are  perfectly  adapted 
to  the  business  of  elementary  instruction.  This  praise  seems  to  me 
somewhat  extravagant ;  for  in  my  humble  opinion,  Paley’s  Natu¬ 
ral  Theology  is  superior  to  his  Evidences,  as  an  elementary 
treatise ;  but  this  opinion  from  a  mind  so  comprehensive  and  so 
highly  gifted  as  that  of  the  gentleman  above  mentioned,  cannot  but 
recommend  this  work  to  the  careful  perusal  of  all  such  persons  as 
wish  for  full  information  and  complete  satisfaction  on  this  mo¬ 
mentous  subject.  And  in  regard  to  the  propriety  of  giving  it  a 
place  in  such  a  selection  as  this,  there  can  be  but  one  opinion.  In¬ 
deed,  whatever  else  had  been  included  in  the  volume,  if  this  had 


i 


PRELIMINARY  DISCOURSE.  39 

been  omitted,  it  would  have  been  considered  defective,  by  most 
judicious  readers. 

It  would  have  been  easy  to  swell  this  volume  to  double  its 
present  size,  without  a  repetition  of  the  same  arguments  ;  but  the 
Editor  has  rightly  judged,  that  for  ready  circulation  and  convenient 
use,  as  well  as  on  the  score  of  economy,  a  book  of  moderate  size 
will  be  best  adapted  to  the  greater  number  of  readers.  It  is  not 
recollected  that  any  work  precisely  on  the  plan  of  the  present 
publication,  has  been  prepared.  The  writer  has,  indeed,  seen, 
many  years  past,  a  little  volume,  entitled  “  The  Panoply,”  which 
contained  a  part  of  what  is  included  in  this  selection ;  but  it 
was  never  widely  circulated,  and  has  been  long  out  of  print. 

The  writer  has  only  to  add  his  sincere  wishes  for  the  success 
of  this  enterprise  ;  so  that  there  may  be  encouragement  for  other 
similar  publications.  He  is  deeply  persuaded,  that  the  real  welfare 
of  this  growing  nation  can  in  no  way  be  more  effectually  pro¬ 
moted,  than  by  inculcating  sound  principles  of  religion  and  mo¬ 
rality  among  the  people  at  large ;  and  that  the  greatest  dangers 
which  menace  our  beloved  country,  are  to  be  apprehended  from 
the  progress  of  infidelity  and  vice.  And  let  the  adage  that  “  a 
grain  of  prevention  is  better  than  an  ounce  of  cure,”  be  remem¬ 
bered,  for  it  is  as  applicable  to  this  subject  as  to  any  .other.  Every 
man,  therefore,  who  contributes  any  thing  to  the  circulation  of 
good  books  on  the  evidences  of  religion,  is  actually  conferring  a 
benefit  on  his  country,  and  while  he  promotes  the  cause  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  at  the  same  time  performs  the  duty  of  a  good  patriot.  In 
other  countries  religion  is  supported  by  the  arm  of  civil  authority, 
and  attacks  on  revealed  religion  are  punished  as  crimes  against  the 
state  ;  but  here,  Christianity  must  depend  upon  her  own  resources 
and  when  assailed,  can  resort  to  no  other  weapons  but  evidence 
and  argument.  And  this  state  of  things  is  not  to  be  regretted  ;  for 
the  truth  is  mighty,  and  will  eventually  prevail.  But  let  all  the 
friends  of  truth  perform  the  duty  which  is  incumbent  on  them  in 
such  circumstances.  And  especially,  let  the  Press  be  put  con¬ 
tinually  into  requisition  for  this  purpose.  The  influence  of  the 
Press  is  incalculable,  both  for  good  and  evil.  And  while  so  much 
that  is  corrupting  to  the  community  flows  through  this  channel, 
let  the  friends  of  truth,  with  fidelity  and  energy,  apply  the  proper 
remedy. 


AN 

APOLOGY  FOR  CHRISTIANITY, 

IN 

A  SERIES  OF  LETTERS, 

ADDRESSED  TO 

EDWARD  GIBBON,  Esq. 

I  AUTHOR  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  THE 

ROMAN  EMPIRE. 

BY 

R.  WATSON,  D.D.,  F.R.S. 

AND  REGIUS  PROFESSOR  OF  DIVINITY  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OP 

CAMBRIDGE. 


41 


I 


THE 


AUTHOR’S  ADVERTISEMENT. 


I  KNOW  not  whether  I  may  he  allowed,  without  the  imputation  of 
vanity,  to  express  the  satisfaction  I  felt  on  being  told  by  my  book¬ 
seller,  that  another  edition  of  the  Apology  for  Christianity  was 
wanted.  It  is  a  satisfaction,  however,  in  which  vanity  has  no  part ; 
it  is  altogether  founded  in  the  delightful  hope,  that  I  may  have  been, 
in  a  small  degree,  instrumental  in  recommending  the  religion  of 
Christ  to  the  attention  of  some,  who  might  not  otherwise  have  con¬ 
sidered  it  with  that  serious  and  unprejudiced  disposition  which  its 
importance  requires. 

The  celebrity  of  the  work  which  gave  rise  to  this  apology,  has, 
no  doubt,  principally  contributed  to  its  circulation:  could  I  have 
entertained  a  thought,  that  it  would  have  been  called  for  so  many 
years  after  its  first  publication,  I  would  have  endeavored  to  have 
rendered  it  more  intrinsically  worthy  the  public  regard.  It  becomes 
not  me,  however,  to  depreciate  what  the  world  has  approved ;  rather 
let  me  express  an  earnest  wish,  that  those,  who  dislike  not  this  little 
book,  will  peruse  larger  ones  on  the  same  subject :  in  them  they 
will  see  the  defects  of  this  so  abundantly  supplied,  as  will,  I  trust, 
convince  them,  that  the  Christian  religion  is  not  a  system  of  super¬ 
stition,  invented  by  enthusiasts,  and  patronized  by  statesmen  for 
secular  ends,  but  a  revelation  of  the  will  of  God. 

London, 

March  10, 1791. 


43 


AN 


APOLOGY  FOR  CHRISTIANITY. 


LETTER  I. 

Sir  ; — ^it  would  give  me  much  uneasiness  to  be  reputed  an  enemy 
to  free  inquiry  in  religious  matters,  or  as  capable  of  being  animated 
into  any  degree  of  personal  malevolence  against  those  who  differ 
from  me  in  opinion.  On  the  contrary,  I  look  upon  the  right  of 
private  judgment,  in  every  concern  respecting  God  and  ourselves, 
as  superior  to  the  control  of  human  authority ;  and  have  ever  re¬ 
garded  free  disquisition  as  the  best  mean  of  illustrating  the  doctrine, 
and  establishing  the  truth  of  Christianity.  Let  the  followers  of 
Mahomet,  and  the  zealots  of  the  church  of  Rome,  support  their 
several  religious  systems  by  damping  every  effort  of  the  human  in¬ 
tellect  to  pry  into  the  foundations  of  their  faith ;  but  never  can  it 
become  a  Christian,  to  be  afraid  of  being  asked  “  a  reason  of  the 
faith  that  is  in  him nor  a  Protestant,  to  be  studious  of  enveloping 
his  religion  in  mystery  and  ignorance  ;  nor  the  Church  of  England, 
to  abandon  that  moderation  by  winch  she  permits  every  individual 
et  senlire  quce  velit,  et  qu(R  sentiat  dicere. 

It  is  not.  Sir,  without  some  reluctance,  that,  under  the  influence 
of  these  opinions,  I  have  prevailed  upon  myself  to  address  these 
Letters  to  you ;  and  you  will  attribute  to  the  same  motive  my  not 
having  given  you  this  trouble  sooner.  I  had,  moreover,  an  expec¬ 
tation,  that  the  task  would  have  been  undertaken  by  some  person 
capable  of  doing  greater  justice  to  the  subject,  and  more  worthy  of 
your  attention.  Perceiving,  however,  that  the  tw'o  last  chapters, 
the  fifteenth  in  pai-ticular,  of  your  very  laborious  and  classical  his 
tory  of  the  Decline  and  F all  of  the  Roman  Empire,  had  made  upon 
many  an  impression  not  at  all  advantageous  to  Christianity ;  and 
that  the  silence  of  others,  of  the  clergy  especially,  began  to  be 
looked  upon  as  an  acquiescence  in  what  you  had  therein  advanced ; 
I  have  thought  it  my  duty,  with  the  utmost  respect  and  good-will 
to  fv  ards  you,  to  take  the  liberty  of  suggesting  to  your  consideration 
a  few  remarks  upon  some  of  the  passages,  which  have  been  es¬ 
teemed  (whether  you  meant  that  they  should  be  so  esteemed  or  not) 
as  powerfully  militating  against  that  revelation,  which  still  is  to 
many,  what  it  formerly  was  “  to  the  Greeks — foolishness but 
wliich  we  deem  to  be  true,  to  “be  the  power  of  God  unto  salva¬ 
tion  to  every  one  that  believeth.”  ,  .  , 

To  the  inquiry,  by  what  means  the  Christian  faith  obtained  so 


46 


Watsori^s  Apology 


remarkable  a  victory  over  the  established  religions  of  the  earth 
you  rightly  answer,  by  the  evidence  of  the  doctrine  itself,  and  the 
ruling  providence  of  its  author.  But  afterwards,  in  assigning  to  this 

secondary  causes,  derived  from  the  passions 
of  the  human  heart,  and  the  general  circumstances  of  mankind,  you 
seem  to  some  to  have  insinuated,  that  Christianity,  like  other  im¬ 
postures,  nught  have  made  its  way  in  the  world,  though  its  origin 
human  as  the  means  by  which  you  suppose  it  was 
spread.  It  is  no  wish  or  intention  of  mine  to  fasten  the  odium  of 
this  insinuation  upon  you :  I  shall  simply  endeavor  to  show,  that 
the  causes  you  produce  are  either  inadequate  to  the  attainment  of 
H  ®  ^  that  their  efficiency,  great  as  you  imagine  it. 

Your  first  cause  is,  “  the  inflexible,  and,  if  you  may  use  the  ex¬ 
pression,  the  intolerant  zeal  of  the  Christians,  derived,  it  is  true 
from  the  Jewish  religion,  but  purified  from  the  narrow  and  unsocial 
sprit,  which  instead  of  inviting,  had  deterred  the  Gentiles  from 
embiacmg  the  law  of  Moses.”— Yes,  Sir,  we  are  agreed  that  the 
zeal  of  the  Christians  was  inflexible  ;  “neither  death,  nor  life,  nor 
pnncipalities,  nor  powers,  nor  things  present,  nor  things  to  come,” 
coffid  bend  it  mto  a  separation  “  from  the  love  of  God  which  was 

inflexible  obstinacy,  in  not 
blaspheming  the  name  of  Christ,  which  everywhere  exposed  them 
o  persecution;  and  which  even  your  amiable  and  philosophic 
ffi  proper,  for  want  of  other  crimes,  to  punish  with  dLth 

of  tbp  province.  We  are  agreed,  too,  that  the  zeal 

of  the  pristians  was  intolerant;  for  it  denounced  “tribulation  and 

fhZ  ^  p  Gentile  :  it  would  not  tolerate  in  Christian  worship 
those  who  supplicated  the  image  of  Ciesar,  who  bowed  down  at  the 
altars  of  I^gamsm,  who  mixed  with  the  votaries  of  Venus  or  w^al 
lowed  in  the  filth  of  Bacchanalian  festivals.  ’ 

though  we  are  thus  far  agreed  with  respect  to  the  inflexi- 
w!i?pW*^.  intolerance  of  Christian  zeal,  yet,  as  to  the  principle  from 
which  It  was  derived,  we  are  Mo  coslo  divided  in  opinion.  You  de- 
Jewish  religion ;  I  would  refer  it  to  a  more  ade- 
quate  and  a  more  obvious  source,  a  full  persuasion  of  the  truth  of 
Christianity.  What!  thmk  you  that  it  was  a  zeal  derived  from  the 
unsocial  spirit  of  Judaism,  which  inspired  Peter  with  courage  to 
upbraid  the  whole  people  of  the  Jews,  in  the  very  capital  of  jSde^ 
wth  having  delivered  up  Jesus,  with  having  denied  him  in  the 
pre^nce  of  Pilate,  w/ith  having  desired  a  murderer  to  be  granted 
ffiem  m  his  stead,  with  having  killed  the  Prince  of  life?”  Was  it 
principle  that  the  same  apostle,  in  conjunction  with  John 
when  summoned,  not  before  the  dregs  of  the  people  (whose  iudg- 
ments  they  might  have  been  supposed  capable  of  misleading'!  and 
and  despised,}  but  before  the  rulers 

Stioii  f tribunal  of  the  Jewish 

nation,  and  commanded  by  them  to  teach  no  more  in  the  name  of 


47 


for  Christianity. 

Jesus _ boldly  answered,  “  that  they  could  not  but  speak  the  things 

which  they  had  seen  and  heard?  They  had  seen  with  their  eyes, 
they  had  handled  with  their  hands,  the  word  of  life and  no  hu¬ 
man  jurisdiction  could  deter  them  from  being  faithful  witnesses  of 
what  they  had  seen  and  heard.  Here,  then,  you  may  perceive  the 
genuine  and  undoubted  origin  of  that  zeal,  which  you  ascribe  to 
what  appeal’s  to  me  a  very  insufficient  cause ;  and  which  the  Jewsh 
rulers  were  so  far  from  considering  as  the  ordinary  effect  of  their 
rehgion,  that  they  were  exceedingly  at  a  loss  how  to  account  for 

it; _ “now  when  they  saw  the  boldness  of  Peter  and  John,  and 

perceived  that  they  were  unlearned  and  ignorant  men,  they  mai- 
velled.”  The  apostles,  heedless  of  consequences,  and  regardless 
of  every  thing  but  truth,  openly  everywhere  professed  themselves 
witnesses  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ;  and  with  a  confidence 
which  could  proceed  from  nothing  but  conviction,  and  which 
pricked  the  Jews  to  the  heart,  bade  “  the  house  of  Israel  kno\v 
assuredly,  that  God  had  made  that  same  Jesus,  whom  they  had 
crucified,  both  Lord  and  Christ.” 

I  mean  not  to  produce  these  instances  of  apostolic  zeal  as  direct 
proofs  of  the  truth  of  Chftstianity ;  for  every  religion,  nay,  every 
absurd  sect  of  every  religion,  has  had  its  zealots,  who  have  not 
scrupled  to  maintain  their  principles  at  the  expense  of  their  lives  : 
and  we  ought  no  more  to  infer  the  truth  of  Christianity  from  the 
mere  zeal  of  its  propagators,  than  the  truth  of  Mahometanism  from 
that  of  a  Turk.  When  a  man  suffers  himself  to  be  covered  with 
infamy,  pillaged  of  his  property,  and  dragged  at  last  to  the  block  or 
the  stake,  rather  than  give  up  his  opinion ;  the  proper  inference  is, 
not  that  his  opinion  is  true,  but  that  he  believes  it  to  be  true ;  and 
a  question  of  serious  discussion  immediately  presents  itself— upon 
what  foundation  has  he  built  his  belief?  This  is  often  an  intricate 
inquiry,  including  in  it  a  vast  compass  of  human  learning.  A  Bra- 
min  or  a  Mandarin,  who  should  observe  a  missionary  attesting  the 
truth  of  Christianity  wfith  his  blood,  would,  notwithstanding,  have  a 
right  to  ask  many  questions,  before  it  could  be  expected  that  he 
should  give  an  assent  to  our  faith.  In  the  case,  indeed,  of  the 
apostles,  the  inquiry  would  be  much  less  perplexed ;  since  it  would 
briefly  resolve  itself  into  this — whether  they  were  credible  reporters 
of  facts,  which  they  themselves  professed  to  have  seen — and  it 
would  be  an  easy  matter  to  show,  that  their  zeal  in  attesting  what 
they  were  certainly  competent  to  judge  of,  could  not  proceed  from 
any  alluring  pi’ospect  of  worldly  interest  or  ambition,  or  from  any 
other  probable  motive  than  a  love  of  truth. 

But  the  credibility  of  the  apostles’  testimony,  or  their  competency 
to  judge  of  the  facts  which  they  relate,  is  not  now  to  be  examined ; 
the  question  before  us  simply  relates  to  the  principle  by  which  their 
zeal  was  excited :  and  it  is  a  matter  of  real  astonishment  to  me,  that 
any  one  conversant  with  the  history  of  the  first  propagation  of 
Christianity,  acquainted  with  the  opposition  it  everywhere  met 
with  from  the  people  of  the  Jews,  and  aware  of  the  repugnancy 
which  must  ever  subsist  between  its  tenets  and  those  of  Judaism, 


48 


WatsorCs  Apology 


indeed,  believed  in  one  God,  and  abomi¬ 
nated  idolatrjr;  but  this  detestation  of  idolatry,  had  it  been  unac- 

of  the  resurrectmn  of  Christ,  would 
probably  have  been  just  as  inefficacious  in  exciting  the  zeal  of  the 
Christian  to  undertaKe  the  conversion  of  the  Gentile  world,  as  it 
had  for  ages  been  in  exciting  that  of  the  Jew.  But  supposing,  what 
^  proved,  and  what  I  am  certain  cannot  be  ad- 

insnfrld  ^  ^  derived  from  the  Jewish  religion 

th?ffi«rinl!?n^  */p  fortitude  to  oppose  themselvel  to 

rntPmS  Paganism;  wrhat  was  it  that  encouraged  them  to 

conversion  of  their  own  countrymen?  Amongst  the 
superstibous  observance  of  idolatrous  rites; 

fr^t?  opportunity  of  “declar- 

confirming  their  zealous  opposition  to  Polytheism,  or  of 

Protestations,  their  attachment  to  the  Chris- 
1  ®^®  ^-^cn,  at  least,  the  C8.use  you  have  assigned  for 
Christian  zeal  ceases  to  operate ;  and  we  must  look  out  for  some 
pSr  P^oiple  than  a  zeal  against  idolatiy,  or  we  shall  never  be- 
able  satisfactorily  to  explain  the  ardor  with  which  the  apostles 
pressed  the  disciples  of  Moses  to  become  the  disciples  of  Christ 
Agam:  Does  a  determined  opposition  to,  and  an  open  abhorrence 
tn  ™?rutest  part  of  an  established  religion,  appear  to  you 

to  be  the  most  likely  method  of  conciliating  to  another  faith  those 
S  ®  y.ou  contend,  could  neither  mix 

ti  ®  their  convivial  entertainments,  nor  partake 

wuththem  in  the  celebraPon  of  their  solemn  festivals :  they  could 
neither  associate  with  them  in  their  hymeneal  nor  funeral  rites  • 
they  could  not  culttvate  their  arts,  or  be  spectators  of  their  shows  • 
m  short,  m  order  to  escape  the  rites  of  Polytheism,  they  were  in 
obliged,  to  renounce  the  commerce  of  ma4ind,  and 
rip?  amusements  of  life.  Now,  how  such  an  extrava- 

intemperate  zeal  as  you  here  describe,  can,  humanly 

Spp  o?-  npe  of  the  chief  causes  of  the  quick 

propagation  of  Christianity,  m  opposition  to  all  the  estabhshed 
of  pagamsm,  is  a  circumstance  I  can  by  no  means  compre- 
nend.  Ihe  Jesuit  missionaries,  whose  human  prudence  no  one 

^  contrary  way  of  thinking;  and 
brought  a  deserved  censure  upon  themselves,  for  not  scrupling  to 

nSli  p"  ????  a 

in  3,p  n  n«e  of  idolatrous  ceremomes.  Upon  the  whole  it  appears 

to  me,  that  the  Christians  were  in  nowise  indebted  to  the  Jewish 

religion  lor  the  zeal  with  which  they  propagated  the  Gospel  amongst 

Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles ;  and  that  such  a  zeal  as  you  describe,  let 

Its  principle  be  what  you  please,  could  never  have  been  devised  by 

any  human  understanding  as  a  probable  mean  of  promoting  the  pro- 

gress  of  a  reformation  in  religion,  much  less  could  it  have  been 

thought  of  or  adopted  by  a  few  ignorant  and  unconnected  men. 

in  expatiating  upon  this  subject  you  have  taken  an  opportunity  of 


49 


for  Christianity. 

remarking,  that  “  the  contemporaries  of  Moses  and  Joshua  had  be¬ 
held  with  careless  indifference  the  most  amazing  miracles — and  that, 
in  contradiction  to  eveiy  known  principle  of  the  human  mind,  that 
singular  people  (the  Jews)  seems  to  have  yielded  a  stronger  and 
more  ready  assent  to  the  traditions  of  their  remote  ancestors,  than 
to  the  evidence  of  their  own  senses.”  This  observation  bears  hard 
upon  the  veracity  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures ;  and,  was  it  true,  would 
force  us  either  to  reject  them,  or  to  admit  a  position  as  extraordinary 
as  a  miracle  itself— that  the  testimony  of  others  produced  in  the 
human  *mind  a  stronger  degree  of  conviction,  concerning  a  matter 
of  fact,  than  the  testimony  of  the  senses  themselves.  It  happens, 
however,  in  the  present  case,  that  we  are  under  no  necessity  of 
either  rejecting  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  or  of  admitting  such  an  ab¬ 
surd  position;  for  the  fact  is  not  true,  that  the  contemporaries  of 
Moses  and  Joshua  beheld  with  careless  indifference  the  miracles 
related  in  the  Bible  to  have  been  performed  in  their  favor.  That 
these  miracles  were  not  sufficient  to  awe  the  Israelites  into  a  uni¬ 
form  obedience  to  the  Theocracy,  cannot  be  denied ;  but  whatever 
reasons  may  be  thought  best  atiapted  to  account  for  the  propensity 
of  the  Jews  to  idolatry,  and  their  frequent  defection  from  the  wor¬ 
ship  of  one  true  God,  a  “  stubborn  incredulity  ”  cannot  be  admitted 
as  one  of  them. 

To  men,  indeed,  whose  understandings  have  been  enlightened 
by  the  Christian  revelation,  and  enlarged  by  all  the  aids  of  human 
learning ;  who  are  under  no  temptations  to  idolatry  from  without, 
and  whose  reason  from  within  would  revolt  at  the  idea  of  wor¬ 
shipping  the  infinite  Author  of  the  universe  under  any  created 
symbol ;  to  men  who  are  compelled,  by  the  utmost  exertion  of  their 
reason,  to  admit  as  an  irrefragable  truth,  what  puzzles  the  first  prin¬ 
ciples  of  all  reasoning,  the  eternal  existence  of  an  uncaused  being ; 
and  who  are  conscious  that  they  cannot  give  a  full  account  of  any 
one  phenomenon  in  nature,  from  the  rotation  of  the  great  orbs  of 
the  universe  to  the  germination  of  a  blade  of  grass,  without  having 
recourse  to  him  as  the  primary  incomprehensible  cause  of  it ;  and 
who,  from  seeing  him  everywhere,  have,  by  a  strange  fatality  (con¬ 
verting  an  excess  of  evidence  into  a  principle  of  disbelief),  at  times 
doubted  concerning  his  existence  anywhere,  and  made  the  very 
universe  their  God ;  to  men  of  such  a  stamp,  it  appears  almost  an 
incredible  thing,  that  any  human  being,  which  had  seen  the  order 
of  nature  interrupted,  or  the  uniformity  of  its  couree  suspended, 
though  but  for  a  moment,  should  ever  afterwards  lose  the  impression 
of  reverential  awe  which  they  apprehend  would  have  been  excited 
in  their  minds.  But  whatever  effect  the  visible  interposition  of  the 
Deity  might  have  in  removing  the  scepticism,  or  confirming  the 
faith,  of  a  few  philosophers,  it  is  with  me  a  very  great  doubt, 
whether  the  people  in  general  of  our  days  would  be  more  strongly 
affected  by  it  than  they  appear  to  have  been  in  the  days  of  Moses. 

Was  any  people  under  heaven  to  escape  the  certain  destruction 
impending  over  them,  from  the  close  pursuit  of  an  enraged  and 
irresistible  enemy,  by  seeing  the  waters  of  the  ocean  “  becoming  a 
E 


50 


Walson's  Apology 


wall  to  them  on  their  right  hand  and  on  their  left:”  they  would  I 
apprehend,  be  agitated  by  the  very  same  passions  w'e  are  told  the 
Israelites  were,  when  they  saw  the  sea  returning  to  his  strength 
and  swallowing  up  the  host  of  Pharaoh ;  they  «  woSld  fear  the  S 
th^  would  believe  the  Lord,”  and  they  would  express  their  faith 
ana  their  fear  by  praising  the  Lord ;  they  would  not  behold  such  a 
peat  work  Avith  ‘<  careless  indifrerence,’4ut  with  astonishmeS  and 

^he  slightest  vestige  of 
stubborn  incredulity  m  their  song  of  gratitude.  No  lengfh  of 
ime  would  be  abp  to  blot  from  their  minds  the  memory  of  such 
a  transaction,  or  induce  a  doubt  concerning  its  author:  though 

hiS  thirst  might  make  them  Jail  out  fori4ter  aSd 

bread,  with  a  desponding  and  rebellious  importunity. 

Israelites  regarded  with 
indifference”  the  amazing  miracles 
wrought;  for,  when  the  law  was  declared  to  them 
Itoto  people  saw  the  thiinderings,  and  the 

of  the  tempest,  and  the  mountain  smoking; 
mid  when  the  people  saw  it,  they  removed  and  stood  afar  off-  and 
hey  said  unto  Moses,  Speak  thou  with  us,  and  we  wift  hear  •  Tut 
let  not  God  speak  with  us,  lest  we  die.”  This  again  Sir  is  the 
a^d^rJtf  language  of  the  contemporaries  of  Moses 

w/  consider  whether  this  is  the 

lai^age  of  stobborn  incredulity,  and  careless  indifference.” 

We  are  toM,  in  Scripture,  too,  that  whilst  any  of  the  “contemno- 
the7ord^?^ff  Joshua  were  alive,  the  whole  people  served 

was^nevpr  miracles  had  made 

was  never  effaced;  nor  the  obedience,  which  might  have  been 

thSr^rnn^^^^  Consequence,  refused,  till  Moses  and  Joshua, 

«  oi .ffi!  contemporaries,  were  gathered  unto  their  fathers ;  till 

other  generation  after  them  arose,  which  knew  not  the  Lord 
nor  yet  the  works  which  he  had  done  for  Israel.”  But  “  the  neoule 

Joshua,  and  all  the  days  of  the. 
elders  that  outlived  J^oshua,  who  had  seen  all  the  great  works  of* 
the  Lord  that  he  did  for  Israel.” 

you.  Sir,  unacquainted  with  Scripture,  or 
nfr  to  f  the  weight  of  its  testimony;  but  as  the  words  of 

wm  Jot  derived  your  observation, 

wdl  not  support  you  m  imputing  “  careless  indifference  ”  to  the  con- 

of  Moses,  or  “pubbom  incredulity”  to  the  forefathers 
M  the  Jews,  I  know  np  what  dan  have  induced  you  to  pass  so  se- 
upon  them,  except  that  you  look  upon  a  lapse  into 

that  Jhlf  pm  mfidehty.  In  answer  to  this  I  would  remark, 

that  with  equal  soundness  of  argument  we  ought  to  infer,  that  every 
one,  who  transgresses  a  religion,  disbelieves  it ;  and  that  everv  in- 
n  diS-  cqmmimity  incurs  civil  pains  and  penalti4,  is 

existence  of  the  authority  by  which  they  are 
inflicted.  The  sanchons  of  the  Mosaic  law  were,  in  your  opinion 
within  the  narrow  limits  of  this  life ;  in  that  particular, 
then,  they  must  have  resembled  the  sanctions  of  all  other  civil 


51 


for  Christianity, 

laws :  “  transgress  and  die”  is  the  language  of  every  one  of  them, 
as  well  as  that  of  Moses ;  and  I  know  not  what  reason  we  have  to 
expect,  that  the  Jews,  who  were  animated  by  the  san  hopes  of 
temporal  rewards,  impelled  by  the  same  fears  of  tempoi-al  punish¬ 
ments,  with  the  rest  of  mankind,  should  have  been  so  singular  in 
their  conduct,  as  never  to  have  listened  to  the  clamors  of  passion 
before  the  still  voice  of  reason ;  as  never  to  have  preferred  a  present 
gratification  of  sense,  in  the  lewd  celebration  of  idolatrous  rites, 
before  the  rigid  observance  of  irksome  ceremonies. 

Before  I  release  you  from  the  trouble  of  this  Letter,  I  cannot  help 
observing,  that  I  could  have  washed  you  had  furnished  your  reader 
with  Limborch’s  answers  to  the  objections  of  the  Jew  Orobio,  con¬ 
cerning  the  perpetual  obligation  of  the  law  of  Moses.  You  have 
indeed  mentioned  Limborch  with  respect,  in  a  short  note;  but 
though  you  have  studiously  put  into  the  mouths  of  the  Judaising 
Christians  in  the  apostolic  days,  and  with  great  strength  inserted 
into  your  text,  whatever  has  been  said  by  Orobio  or  others  against 
Christianity,  from  the  supposed  perpetuity  of  the  Mosaic  dispensa¬ 
tion  ;  yet  you  have  not  favored  us  with  any  one  of  the  numerous 
replies  which  have  been  made  to  these  seemingly  strong  objections. 
You  are  pleased,  it  is  true,  to  say,  “  that  the  industiy  of  our  learned 
divines  has  abundantly  explained  the  ambiguous  language  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  the  ambiguous  conduct  of  the  apostolic  teach¬ 
ers.”  It  requires.  Sir,  no  learned  industry  to  explain  what  is  so  ob¬ 
vious  and  so  express,  that  he  who  runs  may  read  it.  The  language 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  this:  “Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the 
Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel, 
and  with  the  house  of  Judah ;  not  according  to  the  covenant  that  I 
made  w’ith  their  fathers,  in  the  day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to 
bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.”  This,  methinks,  is  a  clear 
and  solemn  declaration ;  there  is  no  ambiguity  at  all  in  it ;  that  the 
covenant  with  Moses  was  not  to  be  perpetual,  but  was  in  some  fu- 
^ture  time  to  give  way  to  a  “  new  covenant.”  I  will  not  detain  you 
with  an  explanation  of  what  Moses  himself  has  said  upon  this  sub¬ 
ject;  but  you  may  try,  if  you  please,  whether  you  can  apply  the 
following  declaration,  which  Moses  made  to  the  Jews,  to  any  pro¬ 
phet  or  succession  of  prophets,  with  the  sa,me  propriety  that  you 
can  to  Jesus  Christ:  “The  Lord  thy  God  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a 
Prophet  from  the  midst  of  thee,  of  thy  brethren,  like  unto  thee : 
unto  him  shall  ye  hearken.”  If  you  think  this  ambiguous  or  obscure, 
I  answer,  that  it  is  not  a  history,  but  a  prophecy ;  and,  as  such,  un¬ 
avoidably  liable  to  some  degree  of  obscurity,  till  interpreted  by  the 
event. 

Nor  was  the  conduct  of  the  apostles  more  ambiguous  than  the 
language  of  the  Old  Testament :  they  did  not  indeed  at  first  com¬ 
prehend  the  whole  of  the  nature  of  the  new  dispensation ;  and  when 
they  did  understand  it  better,  they  did  not  think  proper  upon  every 
occasion  to  use  their  Christian  liberty;  but,  with  true  Christian 
charity,  accommodated  themselves  in  matters  of  indifference  to  the 
prejudices  of  theii'  weaker  brethren.  But  he  w’ho  changes  his  con- 


52 


Watson^s  Apology 


duct  with  a  change  of  sentiments,  proceeding  from  an  increase  of 
knowledge,  is  not  ambiguous  in  his  conduct;  nor  should  he  be  ac¬ 
cused  ol  a  culpable  duplicity,  who,  in  a  matter  of  the  last  import¬ 
ance,  endeavors  to  conciliate  the  good-will  of  all,  by  conforming  in 

a  lew  innocent  observances  to  the  particular  persuasions  of  different 
men. 

One  remark  more,  and  I  have  done.  In  your  account  of  the 
gnostics,  you  have  given  us  a  very  minute  catalogue  of  the  objec¬ 
tions  which  they  made  to  the  authority  of  Moses,  from  his  account 
of  tlm  creation,  of  the  patriarchs,  of  the  law,  and  of  the  attributes  of 
me  Deity.  1  have  not  leisure  to  examine  whether  the  Gnostics  of 
former  ages  really  made  all  the  objectiops  you  have  mentioned  ;  I 
take  It  lor  granted,  upon  your  authority,  that  they  did :  but  I  am 
certain,  if  they  did,  that  the  Gnostics  of  modem  times  have  no  reason 
to  be  puffed  up  Avith  their  knowledge,  or  to  be  had  in  admiration 
as  men  of  subtle  penetration  or  refined  erudition:  they  are  all  mis- 
erab^  copiers  of  their  brethren  of  antiquity;  and  neither  Morgan, 
noi  Tindal,  nor  Bolingbroke,  nor  Voltaire,  have  been  able  to  pro¬ 
duce  scarce  a  single  new  objection.  You  think  that  the  Fathers 
have  not  properly  answered  the  Gnostics.  I  make  no  question.  Sir, 
you  are  able  to  answer  them  to  your  own  satisfaction,  and  informed 
of  every  thmg  that  has  been  said  by  our  “  industrious  divines”  upon 
the  subject;  and  we  should  have  been  glad,  if  it  had  fallen  in  with 
your  plan  to  have  administered  together  with  the  pojson  its  anti¬ 
dote :  but,  since  that  is  not  the  case,  lest  its  malignity  should  spread 
too  far,  I  must  just  mention  it  to  my  younger  readers,  that  Leland 
and  others,  in  their  replies  to  the  modern  deists,  have  given  very 
tuff,  and,  as  many  learned  men  apprehend,  very  satisfactory  am 
swers  to  every  one  of  the  objections  which  you  have  derived  from 
the  Gnostic  heresy.  I  am,  &c. 


LETTER  II. 

Sir;— “The  doctrine  of  a  future  life,  improved  by  every  addi¬ 
tional  circumstance  which  could  give  weight  and  efficacy  to  that 
important  truth,  is  the  second  of  the  causes  to  which  you  attribute 
the  quick  increase  of  Christianity.  Now,  if  we  impartially  consider 
the  circumstances  of  the  persons  to  whom  the  doctrine,  not  simply 
ol  a  future  life,  but  of  a  future  life  accompanied  with  punishments 
well  as  rewards ;  not  only  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  but  of 
the  immortality  of  the  soul  accompanied  with  that  of  the  resurrec¬ 
tion,  was  delivered ;  I  cannot  be  of  opinion,  that,  abstracted  from 
the  supernatural  testimony  by  which  it  was  enforced,  it  could  have 
met  with  any  very  extensive  reception  amongst  them. 

t  w  as  not  that  kind  of  future  life  which  they  expected  ;  it  did  not 
hold  out  to  them  the  punishments  of  the  infernal  regions  as  aniles 


53 


for  Christianity. 

fabulas.  To  the  question,  Quid  si  post  mortem  maneant  animi  ?  they 
could  not  answer  with  Cicero  and  the  philosophers — Beatos  esse 
concedo ;  because  there  was  a  great  probability  that  it  might  be  quite 
otherwise  with  them.  I  am  not  to  learn,  that  there  are  passages  tr 
be  picked  up  in  the  writings  of  the  ancients,  which  might  be  pro¬ 
duced  as  proofs  of  their  expecting  a  future  state  of  punishment  for 
the  flagitious ;  but  this  opinion  was  worn  out  of  credit  before  the 
time  of  our  Saviour:  the  whole  disputation  in  the  first  book  of  the 
Tusculan  Questions  goes  upon  the  other  supposition.  Nor  was  the 
absurdity  of  the  doctrine  of  future  punishments  confined  to  the 
writings  of  the  philosophers,  or  the  circles  of  the  learned  and  polite ; 
for  Cicero,  to  mention  no  others,  makes  no  secret  of  it  in  his  public 
pleadings  before  the  people  at  large.  You,  yourself.  Sir,  have  re¬ 
ferred  to  his  oration  for  Cluentius :  in  this  oration,  you  may  remem¬ 
ber,  he  makes  great  mention  of  a  very  abandoned  fellow,  who  had 
forged  I  loiow  not  how  many  wills,  murdered  I  know  not  how 
many  wives,  and  perpetrated  a  thousand  other  villanies ;  yet  even 
to  this  profligate,  by  name  Oppianicus,  he  is  persuaded  that  death 
was  not  the  occasion  of  any  evil.’*'  Hence,  I  think,  we  may  conclude, 
that  such  of  the  Romans  as  were  not  wholly  infected  with  the  anni¬ 
hilating  notions  of  Epicurus,  but  entertained  (whether  from  remote 
tradition  or  enlightened  argumentation)  hopes  of  a  future  life,  had 
no  manner  of  expectation  of  such  a  life  as  included  in  it  the  severity 
of  punishment  denoimced  in  the  Christian  scheme  against  the 
wicked. 

Nor  was  it  that  kind  of  future  life  which  they  wished :  they 
would  have  been  glad  enough  of  an  Elysium,  which  could  have 
admitted  into  it  men  who  had  spent  this  life  in  the  perpetration  of 
every  \nce  which  can  debase  and  pollute  the  human  heart.  To 
abandon  every  seducing  gratification  of  sense,  to  pluck  up  every 
latent  root  of  ambition,  to  subdue  every  impulse  of  revenge,  to  divest 
themselves  of  every  inveterate  habit  in  which  their  glory  and  their 
pleasure  consisted ;  to  do  all  this  and  more,  before  they  could  look 
up  to  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life  without  terror  and  amazement, 
was  not,  one  would  think,  an  easv  undertaking :  nor  was  it  likely, 
that  many  would  forsake  the  religious  institutions  of  their  ancestors, 
set  at  naught  the  gods  under  whose  auspices  the  capitol  had  been 
founded,  and  Rome  made  mistress  of  the  world ;  and  suflfer  them¬ 
selves  to  be  persuaded  into  the  belief  of  a  tenet,  the  very  mention 
of  which  made  Felix  tremble,  by  any  thing  less  than  a  full  convic¬ 
tion  of  the  supernatural  authority  of  those  who  taught  it. 

The  several  schools  of  Gentile  philosophy  had  discussed,  with  no 
small  subtlety,  every  argument  w'hich  reason  could  suggest,  for  and 
against  the  immortality  of  the  soul ;  and  those  uncertain  glimmer¬ 
ings  of  the  light  of  nature  would  have  prepared  the  minds  of  the 


*  Nam  nunc  quidem  quid  tandem  mali  illi  mors  attulit  ?  nisi  fortS 
ineptiis  ac  fabulis  ducimur,  ut  existimemus  apud  inferos  impiorum  sup- 
plicia  perferre,  ac  plures  illic  otfendisse  inimicos  quam  hie  reliquisse— 
quae  si  falsa  sint,  id  quod  omnes  intelligunt,  &c. 

E2  4 


54 


Watson* s  Apology 

learned  for  the  reception  of  the  full  illustration  of  this  subject  by 
the  Gospel,  had  not  the  resurrection  been  a  part  of  the  doctrine 
therein  advanced.  But  that  this  corporeal  frame,  Avhich  is  hourly 
mouldering  away,  and  resohmd  at  last  into  the  undistinguished 
mass  of  elements  from  which  it  was  at  first  derived,  should  ever  be 
“  clothed  with  immortality ;  that  this  corruptible  should  ever  put  on 
incorruption is  a  truth  so  far  removed  from  the  apprehension  of 
philosophical  research,  so  dissonant  from  the  common  conceptions 
of  mankind,  that  amongst  all  ranks  and  persuasions  of  men  it  was 
esteemed  an  impossible  thing.  At  Athens,  the  philosophers  had 
listened  with  patience  to  St.  Paul,  whilst  they  conceived  him  but  a 
“setter  forth  of  strange  gods;”  but  as  soon  as  they  comprehended, 
that  by  the  avaa-raffii  he  meant  the  resurrection,  they  turned  from 
him  with  contempt.  It  was  principally  the  insisting  upon  the  same 
topic,  which  made  Festus  think  “  that  much  learning  had  made  him 
mad.”  And  the  questions,  “  How  are  the  dead  raised  up  ?”  and, 
“With  what  body  do  they  come  ?”  seem,  by  Paul’s  solicitude  to  an¬ 
swer  them  with  fullness  and  precision,  to  have  been  not  unfrequently 
proposed  to  him  by  those  who  were  desirous  of  becoming  Christians. 

The  doctrine  of  a  future  life,  then,  as  promulged  in  the  Gospel, 
being  neither  agreeable  to  the  expectations,  nor  corresponding  with 
the  wishes,  nor  conformable  to  the  reason  of  the  Gentiles,  I  can 
discover  no  motive  (setting  aside  the  true  one,  the  divine  power  of  its 
first  preachers,)  which  could  induce  them  to  receive  it ;  and,  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  their  belief,  to  conform  their  loose  morals  to  the  rigid 
standard  of  Gospel  purity,  upon  the  mere  authority  of  a  few  con¬ 
temptible  fishermen  of  Judea.  And  even  you,  yourself.  Sir,  seem 
to  have  changed  your  opinion  concerning  the  efficacy  of  the  expect¬ 
ation  of  a  future  life  in  converting  the  heathens,  when  you  observe, 
in  the  following  chapter,  that  “  the  pagan  multitude,  reserving  their 
gratitude  for  temporal  benefits  alone,  rejected  the  inestimable  pres¬ 
ent  of  life  and  immortality  which  was  offered  to  mankind  by  Jesus 
of  Nazareth.” 

Montesquieu  is  of  opinion,  that  it  will  ever  be  impossible  for 
Christianity  to  establish  itself  in  China  and  the  East,  from  the  cir¬ 
cumstance  that  it  prohibits  a  plurality  of  wives.  How  then  could  it 
have  been  possible  for  it  to  have  pervaded  the  voluptuous  capital, 
arid  traversed  the  utmost  limits  of  the  empire  of  Rome,  by  the  feeble 
efforts  of  human  industry,  or  human  knavery  ? 

But  the  Gentiles,  you  are  of  opinion,  were  converted  by  their 
fears ;  and  reckon  the  doctrine  of  Christ’s  speedy  appearance,  of 
the  millennium,  and  of  the  general  conflagration,  amongst  those 
additional  circumstances  which  gave  weight  to  that  concerning  a 
future  state.  Before  I  proceed  to  the  examination  of  the  efficiency 
of  these  several  circumstances  in  alarming  the  apprehensions  of  the 
Gentiles,  w’^hat  if  I  should  grant  your  position  ?  Still  the  main  ques¬ 
tion  recurs.  From  what  somce  did  they  derive  the  fears  which 
converted  them  ?  Not  surely  from  the  mere  human  labors  of  men 
who  w'ere  everywhere  spoken  against,  made  a  spectacle  of,  and 
considered  as  the  filth  of  the  world,  and  the  offscouring  of  all  things ; 


55 


for  Christianity. 

not  surely  from  the  human  powers  of  him,  who  professed  himself 
“  rude  in  speech,  in  bodily  presence  contemptible,”  and  a  despiser 
of  “the  excellency  of  speech,  and  the  enticing  words  of  men’s  wis- 
[  dom.”  No,  such  wretched  instruments  were  but  ill  fitted  to  inspire 
I  the  haughty  and  the  learned  Romans  with  any  other  passions  than 
those  of  pity  or  contempt. 

Now,  Sir,  if  you  please,  we  will  consider  that  universal  expecta¬ 
tion  of  the  approaching  end  of  the  world,  which,  you  think,  had 
such  great  influence  in  converting  the  pagans  to  the  profession  of 
Christianity.  The  near  approach,  you  say,  of  this  wonderful  event 
had  been  predicted  by  the  apostles,  “  though  the  revolution  of  seven¬ 
teen  centuries  has  instructed  us  not  to  press  too  closely  the  mysteri¬ 
ous  language  of  prophecy  and  revelation.”  That  this  opinion,  even 
in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  had  made  its  way  into  the  Christian 
church,  I  readily  admit ;  but  that  the  apostles  ever  either  predicted 
this  event  to  others,  or  cherished  the  expectation  of  it  in  themselves, 
does  not  seem  probable  to  me.  As  this  is  a  point  of  some  difficulty 
and  importance,  you  will  suffer  me  to  explain  it  at  some  length. 

It  must  be  owned,  that  there  are  several  passages  in  the  writings 
of  the  apostles,  which,  at  the  first  view,  seem  to  countenance  the 
opinion  you  have  adopted.  “  Now,”  says  St.  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  “  it  is  high  time  to  awake  out  of  sleep ;  for  now  is  our 
salvation  nearer  than  when  we  believed.  The  night  is  far  spent, 
the  day  is  at  hand.”  And  in  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  he 
comforts  such  of  them  as  were  sorrowing  for  the  loss  of  their 
friends,  by  assuring  them,  that  they  were  not  lost  for  ever ;  but  that 
the  Lord,  when  he  came,  would  bring  them  with  him ;  and  that 
they  would  not,  in  the  participation  of  any  blessings,  be  in  anywise 
behind  those  who  should  happen  then  to  be  alive  :  “  We,”  says  he 
(the  Christians  of  whatever  age  or  country,  agreeable  to  a  frequent 
use  of  the  pronoun  we),  “  which  are  alive,  and  remain  unto  the 
coming  of  the  Lord,  shall  not  prevent  them  which  are  asleep ;  for 
the  Lord  lumself  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout,  with  the 
voice  of  the  archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of  God,  and  the  dead  in 
Christ  shall  rise  first ;  then  w^e  which  are  alive,  and  remain,  shall 
be  caught  up  together  with  them  in  the  clouds  to  meet  the  Lord.” 
In  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  he  exhorts  his  Christian  brethren 
not  to  disquiet  themselves  with  carking  cares  about  their  temporal 
concerns,  from  this  powerful  consideration,  that  the  Lord  was  at 
hand :  “  Let  your  moderation  be  Imown  unto  all  men ;  the  Lord  is 
at  hand :  be  careful  about  nothing.”  The  apostle  to  the  Hebrews 
inculcates  the  same  doclrine,  admonishing  his  converts  “  to  provoke 
one  another  to  love,  and  to  good  works ;  and  so  much  the  more,  as 
they  saw^  the  day  approaching.”  The  age  in  which  the  apostles  lived 
is  frequently  called  by  them  the  end  of  the  world,  the  last  days,  the 
last  hour.  I  think  it  unnecessa^.  Sir,  to  trouble  you  with  an  expli¬ 
cation  of  these  and  other  similar  texts  of  Scripture,  which  are 
usually  adduced  in  support  of  your  opinion ;  since  I  hope  to  be  able 
to  give  you  a  direct  proof,  that  the  apostles  neither  comforted  them¬ 
selves,  nor  encouraged  others,  with  the  delightful  hope  of  seeing 


56 


Watson's  Apology 

their  master  coming  again  into  the  world.  It  is  evident,  then,  that 
St.  John,  who  survived  all  the  other  apostles,  could  not  have  had 
any  such  expectation;  since,  in  the  book  of  the  Revelation,  the 
future  events  of  the  Christian  church,  which  were  not  to  take 
place,  many  of  them,  till  a  long  series  of  years  after  his  death,  and 
some  of  which  have  not  yet  been  accomplished,  are  there  minutely 
described.  St.  Peter,  in  like  manner,  strongly  intimates,  that  the 
day  of  the  Lord  might  be  said  to  be  at  hand,  though  it  was  at  the 
distance  of  a  thousand  years  or  more ;  for  in  replying  to  the  taunt 
of  those  who  did  then,  or  should  in  future  ask,  “  Where  is  the 
promise  of  his  coming?”  he  says,  “Beloved,  be  not  ignorant  of  this 
one  thing,  that  one  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and 
a  thousand  years  as  one  day :  The  Lord  i§  not  slack  concerning  his 
promise,  as  some  men  count  slackness.”  And  he  speaks  of  putting 
off  his  tabernacle,  as  the  Lord  had  showed  him ;  and  of  his  en¬ 
deavor,  that  the  Christians  after  his  decease  might  be  able  to  have 
these  things  in  remembrance :  so  that  it  is  past  a  doubt,  he  could 
not  be  of  opinion,  that  the  Lord  would  come  in  his  time.  As  to  St. 
Paul,  upon  a  partial  view  of  whose  writings  the  doctrine  concerning 
the  speedy  coming  of  Christ  is  principally  founded,  it  is  manifest, 
that  he  was  conscious  he  should  not  live  to  see  it,  notwithstanding 
the  expression  before-mentioned,  “we  which  are  alive;”  for  he 
foretells  his  own  death  in  express  terms :  “  The  time  of  my  depar 
ture  is  at  hand ;”  and  he  speaks  of  his  reward,  not  as  immediately 
to  be  conferred  on  him,  but  as  laid  up,  and  reserved  for  him  till 
some  future  day.  “I  have  fought  a  good  fight,  I  have  finished  my 
course ;  henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness* 
which  the  Lord,  the  righteous  judge,  shall  give  me  at  that  day.’ 
There  is,  moreover,  one  passage  in  his  writings,  which  is  so  express* 
and  full  to  the  purpose,  that  it  will  put  the  matter,  I  think,  beyond 
all  doubt ;  it  occurs  in  his  Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians :  they, 
it  seems,  had,  either  by  misinterpreting  some  parts  of  his  former 
letter  to  them,  or  by  the  preaching  of  some,  who  had  not  the  spirit 
of  truth ;  by  some  means  or  other,  they  had  been  led  to  expect  the 
speedy  coming  of  Christ,  and  been  greatly  disturbed  in  mind  upon 
that  account.  To  remove  this  error,  he  writes  to  them  in  the  follow¬ 
ing  very  solemn  and  affectionate  manner:  “We  beseech  you, 
brethren,  by  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  our 
gathering  together  unto  him,  that  ye  be  not  soon  shaken  in  mind, 
or  be  troubled,  neither  by  spirit,  nor  by  word,  nor  by  letter  as  from 
us,  as  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  is  at  hand ;  let  no  man  deceive 
you  by  any  means.”  He  then  goes  on  to  describe  a  falling  away,  a 
great  corruption  of  the  Christian  church,  which  was  to  happen 
before  the  day  of  the  Lord.  Now,  by  this  revelation  of  the  man  of 
sin,  this  mystery  of  iniquity,  which  is  to  be  consumed  with  the 
spirit  of  his  mouth,  destroyed  by  the  brightness  of  his  coming,  we 
have  every  reason  to  believe,  is  to  be  understood  the  past  and 
present  abominations  of  the  church  of  Rome.  How  then  can  it  b*? 
said  of  Paul,  who  clearly  foresaw  this  corruption  above  seventeen 
hundred  years  ago,  that  he  expected  the  coming  of  the  Lord  in  his 


57 


for  Christianity. 

owTi  day  ?  Let  us  press,  Sir,  the  mysterious  language  of  prophecy 
and  revelation  as  closely  as  you  please ;  but  let  us  press  it  truly ; 
and  we  may,  perhaps,  find  reason  from  thence  to  receive,  with  less 
reluctance,  a  religion,  which  describes  a  corruption,  the  strangeness 
of  which,  had  it  not  been  foretold  in  unequivocal  terms,  might  have 
amazed  even  a  friend  to  Christianity. 

I  will  produce  you.  Sir,  a  prophecy,  which,  the  more  closely  you 
press  it,  the  more  reason  you  will  have  to  believe,  that  the  speedy 
coming  of  Christ  coiild  never  have  been  “  predicted”  by  the  apostles. 
Take  it,  as  translated  by  Bishop  Newton:  “jBpt  the  Spirit  speakelh 
{^expre^sly,  that  in  the  latter  times,  some  shall  apostatize  from  the 
^failh ;  _giYing  he_ed  to  erroneous  spirits,  and  doctrines  concerning 
<'’^^^ons,  through  the  hypocrisy  of  liars ;  having  their  conscience 
^-^seared  with  a  red-hot  iron ;  forbidding  to  marry,  and  commanding, 
rTo  abstain  from  meats.”  Here  you  have  an  express  prophecy  ;  the. 
/'Spirit  hath  spoken  it ;  that  in  the  latter  times,  not  immediately,  but, 

;  "af'some  distant  period,  some  should  apostatize  from  the  faith ;  some, 

/  '"who  had  been  Christians,  should  in  truth  be  so  no  longer,  but  should .. 
,i"gr?eTieed  to  erroneous  spirits,  and  doctrines  concerning  demons. 

■  ^Pss  this  expression  closely,  and  you  may,  perhaps,  discover  in  it 
,  fKe  erroneous  tenets,  and  the  demon  or  saint  worship,  of  the  church' 

.  qf  Rome,  Through  the  hypocrisy  of  liars :  you  recognize,  no  doubt, 
-^he jp-riesthoo3/  and  the  martyrologists.  Having  their  conscience 
'.seared  with  a  red-hot  iron:  callous,  indeed,  must  his  conscience  be, 
3^ho  Iraflics  in  indulgence.  Forbidding  to  marry,  and  commanding 
:to  abstain  from  meats :  this  language  needs  no  pressing ;  it  dis->. 
•;covers,  at  once,  the  unhappy  votaries  of  monastic  life,  and  the 
(mortal  sin  qf  eating  flesh  oh  fast  days. 

If,  notwithstanding  what  has  been  said,  you  should  still  be  of 
opinion,  that  the  apostles  expected  Christ  would  come  in  their  time  ; 
it  will  not  follow',  that  this  their  error  ought  in  any  w'ise  to  diminish 
their  authority  as  preachers  of  the  Gospel.  I  am  sensible  this  posi¬ 
tion  may  alarm  even  some  well-wishers  to  Christianity ;  and  supply 
its  enemies  with  what  they  will  think  an  irrefragable  argument. 
The  apostles,  they  will  say,  were  inspired  with  the  spirit  of  truth ; 
and  yet  they  fell  into  a  gross  mistake,  concerning  a  matter  of  great 
importance ;  how  is  this  to  be  reconciled  ?  Perhaps,  in  the  following 
manner : — When  the  time  of  our  Saviour’s  ministry  w  as  nearly  at  an 
end,  he  thought  proper  to  raise  the  spirits  of  his  disciples,  who  were 
quite  cast  dowm  with  what  ho  had  told  them  about  his  design  of 
leaving  them ;  by  promising,  that  he  would  send  to  them  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  Comforter,  the  Spirit  of  truth ;  who  should  teacli  them 
all  things,  and  lead  them  into  all  truth.  And  we  know,  that  this  his 
promise  was  accomplished  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  they  w  ere 
all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  we  know  farther,  that  from  that 
time  forward  they  were  enabled  to  speak  with  tongues,  to  w'ork 
miracles,  to  preach  the  word  with  power,  and  to  comprehend  the 
mystery  of  the  new  dispensation  which  was  committed  unto  them. 
But  w'e  have  no  reason  from  hence  to  conclude,  that  they  were  im.- 
raediately  inspired  with  the  apprehension  of  whatever  might  be 


58 


Watson's  Apology 

known;  that  they  became  acquainted  with  all  kinds  of  truth.  They 
were  undoubtedly  led  into  such  truths  as  it  was  necessary  for  them 
to  know,  in  order  to  their  converting  the  world  to  Christianity ;  but, 
in  other  things,  they  were  probably  left  to  the  exercise  of  their  un¬ 
derstanding,  as  other  men  usually  are.  But  surely  they  might  be 
proper  witnesses  of  the  life  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  though  they 
were  not  acquainted  with  every  thing  which  might  have  been 
known ;  though,  in  particular,  they  were  ignorant  of  the  precise 
time  when  our  Lord  would  come  to  judge  the  world.  It  can  be  no 
impeachment,  either  of  their  integrity  as  men,  or  their  ability  as 
historians,  or  their  honesty  as  preachers,  of  the  Gospel,  that  they 
were  unacquainted  with  what  had  never  been  revealed  to  them ; 
tliat  they  followed  their  own  understandings  where  they  had  no 
better  light  to  guide  them ;  speaking  from  conjecture,  when  they 
could  not  speak  from  certainty ;  of  themselves,  when  they  had  no 
commandment  of  the  Lord.  They  knew  but  in  part,  and  they  pro¬ 
phesied  but  in  part;  and  concerning  this  particular  point,  Jesus 
himself  had  told  them,  just  as  he  was  about  finally  to  leave  them,  that 
J  was  not  for  them  to  “  know  the  times  and  the  seasons,  which  the 
Father  had  put  in  his  own  power.”  Nor  is  it  to  be  wondered  at, 
that  the  apostles  -were  left  in  a  state  of  uncertainty  concerning  the 
time  in  which  Christ  should  appear ;  since  beings  far  more  exalted, 
and  more  highly  favored  of  heaven  than  they,  were  under  an  equal 
degree  of  ignorance :  “  Of  that  day,”  says  our  Saviour,  “  and  of  that 
hour,  knoweth  no  one ;  no,  not  the  angels  w'hich  are  in  heaven, 
neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father  only.”  1  am  afraid.  Sir,  I  have  tired 
you  wdth  Scripture  quotations ;  but  if  I  have  been  fortunate  enough 
to  convince  you,  either  that  the  speedy  coming  of  Christ  was  never 
expected,  much  less  “  predicted,”  by  the  apostles ;  or  that  their 
mistake  in  that  particular  expectation  can  in  no  degree  diminish 
the  general  weight  of  their  testimony  as  historians,  I  shall  not  be 
sorry  for  the  ennui  I  may  have  occasioned  you. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Millennium  is  the  second  of  the  circumstances 
which  you  produce  as  giving  weight  to  that  of  a  future  state ;  and 
you  represent  this  doctrine  as  having  been  “carefully  calculated 
by  a  succession  of  the  fathers,  from  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus, 
down  to  Lactantius ;”  and  observe,  that  when  “  the  edifice  of  the 
church  was  almost  completed,  the  temporary  support  was  laid 
aside  ;”  and  in  the  notes  you  refer  us,  as  a  proof  of  what  you  ad¬ 
vance,  to  “  IreniBus,  the  disciple  of  Papias,  who  had  seen  the  apostle 
St.  John,”  and  to  the  second  dialogue  of  Justin  with  Trypho. 

I  wish.  Sir,  you  had  turned  to  Eusebius,  for  the  character  of  this 
Papias,  who  had  seen  the  ajKistle  St.  John:  you  would  there  have 
found  him  represented  as  little  better  than  a  credulous  old  w'oman ; 
very  averse  from  reading,  but  mightily  given  to  picking  up  stories 
and  traditions  next  to  fabulous ;  amongst  which,  Eusebius  reckons 
this  of  the  Millennium  one.  Nor  is  it,  I  apprehend,  quite  certain, 
that  Papias  ever  saw,  much  less  discoursed,  as  seems  to  be  insinu¬ 
ated,  with  the  apostle  St.  John.  Eusebius  thinks  rather,  that  it  was 
John  the  presbyter  he  had  seen.  But  what  if  he  had  seen  the 


59 


for  Christianity, 

apostle  himself?  Many  a  weak-headed  man  had  undoubtedly  seen 
him  as  well  as  Papias ;  and  it  w^ould  be  hard  indeed  upon  Chris¬ 
tians,  if  they  were  compelled  to  receive,  as  apostolical  traditions,  the 
wild  reveries  of  ancient  enthusiasm,  or  such  crude  conceptions  of 
ignorant  fanaticism  as  nothing  but  the  rust  of  antiquity  can  render 
venerable. 

As  to  the  works  of  Justin,  the  very  dialogue  you  refer  to  contams 
a  proof,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Millennium  had  not,  even  in  his 
time,  the  universal  reception  you  have  supposed :  but,  that  many 
Christians  of  pure  and  pious  principles  rejected  it.  I  wonder  how 
this  passage  escaped  you;  but  it  may  be  that  you  followed  Tillot- 
son,  who  himself  follow'ed  Mede,  and  read  in  the  original  ov  instead 
of  av ;  and  thus  inwardly  violated  the  idiom  of  the  language,  the 
sense  of  the  context,  and  the  authority  of  the  best  editions.*  In  the 
note  you  observe,  that  it  is  unnecessary  for  you  to  mention  all  the 
intermediate  lathers  between  J ustin  and  Lactantius,  as  the  fact,  you 
say,  is  not  disputed.  In  a  man  who  has  read  so  many  books,  and  to 
so  good  a  purpose,  he  must  be  captious  indeed,  who  cannot  excuse 
small  mistakes.  That  unprejudiced  regard  to  truth,  how'eyer,  which 
is  the  great  characteristic  of  every  distinguished  historian,  will,  I 
am  persuaded,  make  you  thank  me  for  recalling  to  your  memory, 
that  Origen,  the  most  learned  of  all  the  fathers,  and  Dionysius,  bishop 
of  Alexandria,  usually,  for  his  immense  erudition,  surnamed  the 
Great,  were  both  of  them  prior  to  Lactantius,  and  both  of  them  im- 
pugners  of  the  Millennium  doctrine.  Look,  Sir,  into  Mosheim,  or 
almost  any  w'riter  of  ecclesiastical  history,  and  you  will  find  the  op¬ 
position  of  Origen  and  Dionysius  to  this  system  particularly  noticed: 
look  into  so  common  an  author  as  Whitby,  and  in  his  learned  trea¬ 
tise  upon  this  subject  you  will  find  that  he  has  w'ell  proved  these 
two  propositions :  first,  that  this  opinion  of  the  Millennium  was  never 
generally  received  in  the  church  of  Christ;  secondly,  that  there  is 
no  just  ground  to  think  it  w^as  derived  from  the  apostles.  From 
hence,  I  think,  we  may  conclude,  that  this  Millennium  doctrine 
(which,  by  the  by,  though  it  be  new-modelled,  is  not  yet  thrown 
aside)  could  not  have  been  any  very  serviceable  scaffold  in  the 
erection  of  that  mighty  edifice,  which  has  crushed  by  the  weights 
of  its  materials,  and  debased  by  the  elegance  of  its  structure,  the 


*  .tastin,  in  answering  the  question  proposed  by  Trypho,  Whether  the 
Christians  believed  the  doctrine  of  the  Millennium,  says,  SLuoXoynoa  yv  ffoi 
t<ai  irpoTcpov,  on  eyco  rjev  kui  aXXoi  iroXXoi  ravra  <ppovyp£V,  ws  Kai  vav- 
rws  eirigaffOe,  ryro  yevrjtropievov.  IloXXb'?  5’aii  Kai  rwv  Tr]s  KA0APA2 
KAI  EYSEBOYS  ovtwv  Xptgiavcov  TNliMHS  rsro  pv  yvcopi^eiv, 
earjpava  croi.  The  note  subjoined  to  this  passage  out  of  Justin,  in  Thirl- 
by’s  ed.  an.  1722,  is  [XloXXa?  S'av  kui  tu>v  ttjs  Kadapag.]  Medus  (quern 
seqiiitur  Tillotsonus,  Reg.  Fidei  per  iii.  sect.  ix.  p.  756,  &  seq.)  legit  rwv 
ti  rrjg  Kadapag.  Vehementer  errant  viri  praeclari. 

And  in  Jebb’s  Edit.  an.  1719,  we  have  the  following  note  ;  “  Doctnna 
itaque  de  Millennio,  neque  erat  universalis  ecclesise  traditio,  nec  opinio 
de  fide  recepta,”  &c. 


GO 


Walson's  Apology 


stateliest  temples  of  heathen  superstition.  With  these  remarks  T 
teke  leave  of  the  Millennium;  j^ust  observing,  tLt  yourXd  cn-- 
cumstance,  the  general  conflagration,  seems  to  be  effectuallv  in 
eluded  m  your  first,  the  speedy  coming  of  Christ.  I  ^m?  &c  ^ 


LETTER  III. 


five' S  to  the  primi- 

rrZf  ^7^1  ■  ■  t.®  of  the  secondary  causes  of  the  ranid 

growth  of  Christianity.  I  should  be  willing  tJ  account  the  miracles 
not  merely  ascribed  to  the  primitive  church,  but  really  performed 

fife  GeSf  c^use.of  the  conversion  of 

fjf  ’^.o^tiles.  But  waiving  this  consideration,  let  us  see  whether 

powers,  which  you  ascribe  to  the  primitive  church 
were  m  any  eminent  degree  calculated  to  spread  the  belief  of 
Clwistianity,  amongst  a  great  and  enlightened  people. 

as  faithful.  o"n  women 

foture  history,  or  to  guide  the  present  administration  of  the  church  ” 
You  speak  of  ‘  the  expulsion  of  demons  as  an  ordinarv  trifmnh  rif 
reh^on,  usually  performed  in  a  public  mannerrand  ^h^X  pa 
tient  was  relieved  by  the  skill  or  the  power  of  the  exoS  the  vfJ' 
quished  demon  was  heard  to  confess  that  he  wXone  of  thXweH 

=sl~rir“"  ss=!"HHS 

crease  ol  Christianity,  have  not  converted  half  her  nnmhoisa  tr, 
testantism,  and  the  other  half  to  infidelity  ?  Neither  the  sword  of  tlie 

Xont^Sw  egT”^  ChLp:  M\aX  e^Xshed"  it 

axiionf,  ragans  {  i  beg  I  may  not  be  misunderstood  •  T  dn 
upon  me  to  say,  that  all  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  liistoiv  of  tbV 
mmiuve  church  after  the  apostolical  age  were  f„, S  i,  ' 

Sect-  bu?r ‘deliver  any  opinion  upon  that 

were  forgeries  must®  inTa.  foaS^ag^'b"'  ,t“ 


61 


for  Christianity. 

have  rather  impeded  than  accelerated  the  progress  of  Christianity ; 
and  it  appears  very  probable  to  me,  that  nothing-  but  the  recent 
prevailing  evidence  of  real,  unquestioned,  apostolical  miracles, 
could  have  secured  the  infant  church  from  being  destroyed  by 
those  which  were  falsely  ascribed  to  it. 

It  is  not  every  man  who  can  nicely  separate  the  corruptions  of 
religion  from  religion  itself;  nor  justly  apportion  the  degrees  of 
credit  due  to  the  diversities  of  evidence ;  and  those  who  have 
ability  for  the  task  are  usually  ready  enough  to  emancipate  them¬ 
selves  from  Gospel  restraints  (which  thwart  the  propensities  of 
sense,  check  the  ebullitions  of  passion,  and  combat  the  prejudices 
of  the  world  at  eveiy  turn),  by  blending  its  native  simplicity  with 
the  supemtitions  which  have  been  derived  from  it.  INo  argument  is 
so  well  suited  to  the  indolence  or  the  immorality  of  mankind,  as  that 
priests  of  all  ages  and  religions  are  the  same :  we  see  the  preten¬ 
sions  of  the  Romish  priesthood  to  miraculous  powers,  and  w  e  know 
them  to  be  false  ;  w'e  are  conscious,  that  they  at  least  must  sacrifice 
their  integrity  to  their  interest,  or  their  ambition ;  and  being  per¬ 
suaded,  that  there  is  a  great  sameness  in  the  passions  of  mankind, 
and  in  their  incentives  to  action ;  and  knowing  that  the  history  of 
past  ages  is  abundantly  stored  with  similar  claims  to  supernatural 
authority,  w^e  traverse  back,  in  imagination,  the  most  distant  regions 
of  antiquity ;  and  finding,  from  a  superficial  view,  nothing  to  dis¬ 
criminate  one  set  of  men,  or  one  period  of  time,  from  another,  w  e 
hastily  conclude,  that  all  revealed  religion  is  a  cheat,  and  that  the 
miracles  attributed  to  the  apostles  themselves  are  supported  by  no 
better  testimony,  nor  more  worthy  our  attention,  than  the  prodigies 
of  Pagan  story,  or  the  lying  wonders  of  Papal  artifice.  1  have  no 
intention,  in  this  place,  to  enlarge  upon  the  many  circumstances  by 
which  a  candid  inquirer  after  truth  might  be  enabled  to  dislingnisn 
a  pointed  difference  between  the  miracles  of  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
and  the  tricks  of  ancient  or  modern  superstition.  One  observation 
I  would  just  suggest  to  \mu  upon  this  subject :  the  miracles  recorded 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testament  are  so  intimately  united  whth  the 
narration  of  common  events,  and  the  ordinary  transactions  of  life, 
that  you  cannot,  as  in  profane  history,  separate  the  one  from  the 
other.  My  meaning  will  be  illustrated  by  an  instance ;  Tacitus 
and  Suetonius  have  handed  down  to  us  an  account  of  niany  great 
actions  performed  by  Vespasian;  amongst  the  rest,  they  inform  us 
of  Iris  having  wrought  some  miracles,  of  his  having  cured  a  lame 
man,  and  restored  sight  to  one  that  was  blind.  But  what  they  tell 
us  of  these  miracles  is  so  unconnected  with  every  thing  that  goes 
before  and  after,  that  you  may  reject  the  relation  of  them  without 
‘  injuring,  in  any  degree,  the  consistency  of  the  narration  of  the  other 
circumstances  of  his  life :  on  the  other  hand,  if  you  reject  the  rela¬ 
tion  of  the  miracles  said  to  have  been  performed  by  Jesus  Christ, 
you  must  necessarily  reject  the  account  of  his  whole  life,  and  of 
several  transactions,  concerning  Avhich  we  have  the  undoubted  tes¬ 
timony  of  other  writers  besides  the  evangelists.  But  if  this  argu¬ 
ment  should  not  strike  you,  perhaps  the  following  observation  may 
F 


62 


Watson’’ s  Apology 

tend  to  remove  a  little  of  the  prejudice  usually  conceived  against 
Go  pel  mnacles,  by  men  of  lively  imaginations,  from  the  gross  for- 
genes  at  ributed  to  the  first  ages  of  the  church.  ^ 

•in  physics  are  sometimes  happily  illustrated  by 

an  hypothesis ;  and  the  most  recondite  truths  of  mathematical 

invesligated  from  an  absurd  position :  what 
suDpL7th^  tW^  method  of  arguing  in  the  case  before  us  ?  Let  us 
Sid  Ld  thaf  f  ^e^/e^'elation  was  to  be  promulged  to  man- 
Knid,  and  that  twelve  unlearned  and  unfriended  men,  inhabitants 

odious  and  despicable  in  the  eyes  of  Europe 

in^an^LiS  be  endowed  .with  the  faLlty  of  speSc- 

mg  Janguages  they  had  never  learned,  and  performing  works  sur- 

a^partfcSar  *tr?ith  ^ being  strongly  impressed  with 
fu-F  u  m  they  were  commissioned  to  promulo-ate 

feSouit  al Uh" through  the  barbarous  regionToSLt’ 
out  through  all  the  learned  and  polished  states  of  Europe  •  m-eachino- 

eveywhere  with  unremitted  sedulity  a  new  religion^ wwkine  st/ 
Fo  "tW  mission,tnT?omZnS^^^^ 

fpirS  Ss  ^  seal  of  their  conversion)  a  variety  Sf 

^  appear  probable  to  you,  that  after  the  ^eath 

of  these  men,  and  probably  after  the  deaths  of  most  of  their  imme- 

zealously  attached  to  the  faith  they 
had  seen  so  miraculously  confirmed,  that  none  would  ever  attempt 
o  impose  upon  the  credulous  or  the  ignorant,  by  a  fictitious  clSm 
to  supernatural  powers  ?  w^ould  none  of  them  aspire  to  the  gift  of 

the^ddusiZs''S-T'heaf  ™stake  frenzy  for  tiluminatiol  and 
me  aeiusions  of  a  heated  brain  for  the  impulses  of  the  Snh-it  ? 

would  none  undertake  to  cure  inveterate  Cder?  to  LS  dP 
mens,  or  to  raise  the  dead  t  As  far  as  I  can  aZSd  we  ouaht 
from  such  a  position,  to  deduce,  by  every  rule  of  probable  reason’ 
mg  the  precise  conclusion,  which  was  fa  fact  trifled  in 
enabled  r  &  every  species  of  ndracles,  which  Heaven  had 

Sher  ftom  mSoFde?  “f  P®''®’™'  counterfeited, 

the  imbecililv  n?  ibo^'  "'•erested  cunning,  either  through 

11  ^  iniquity  of  mankind;  and  we  might  iust  as 

chastitv  in  the  wnihfV^^^^  charity,  or 

virtuS  as  thatXrp  Z""  plenty  of  pretenders  to  tLse 

yriues,  as  that  there  never  were  any  real  miracles  performed  fmm 

considering  the  great  store  of  those  Uich  have  been  forged.  ’ 
prfsZtLe^irnZ.?”'^  has  happened,  there  are  miny  in  the 

preiSices  a&st  I  m""  Sir,  in  the  number),  whose 

fVint  it  ^  wiiraculous  events  have  arisen  to  that  height 

nowe\er  great,  to  e.stabhsh  their  credibilitv.  I  bea  uardnn  fnr 
Z  tW  mir  reasoning,  prejudice ;  I  have  no  design  to  give  offence 
by  that  word ;  they  may,  with  equal  right,  throw  fhe  smne  imimta 
tion  upon  mine;  and  I  think  it  just  as  illiberal  in  divines  ™ VtSibute 

had  Ihfi  f  ^  divine  to  professional  bias.  I  have  not 

had  so  little  intercourse  with  manldnd,  nor  shunned  so  much  the 


63 


for  Christianity. 

delightful  freedom  of  social  converse,  as  to  be  ignorant,  that  there 
are  many  men  of  upright  morals  and  good  understandings,  to  whom, 
as  you  express  it,  “  a  latent  and  even  involuntaiy  scepticisin  ad¬ 
heres  and  who  would  be  glad  to  be  persuaded  to  be  Christians : 
and  how  severe  soever  some  men  may  be  in  their  judgments  con¬ 
cerning  one  another ;  yet  we  Christians,  at  least,  hope  and  believ^ 
that  the  great  Judge  of  all  will  make  allowance  for  “our  habits  of 
study  and  reflection,”  for  various  circumstances,  the  efficacy  of 
which,  in  giving  a  particular  bent  to  the  understandings  of  men, 
we  can  neither  comprehend  nor  estimate.  For  the  sake  of  such 
men,  if  such  should  ever  be  induced  to  throw  an  hour  away  in  the 
perusal  of  these  Letters,  suffer  me  to  step  for  a  moment  out  of  my 
way,  whilst  I  hazard  an  observation  or  two  upon  the  subject. 

knowledge  is  rightly  divided  by  Mr.  Locke  into  intuitive,  sensi¬ 
tive,  and  demonstrative.  It  is  clear,  that  a  past  miracle  can  neither 
be  the  object  of  sense  nor  of  intuition,  nor  consequently  of  demon¬ 
stration  ;  we  cannot  then,  philosophically  speaking,  be  said  to  know, 
that  a  miracle  has  ever  been  performed.  But,  in  all  the  great  con¬ 
cerns  of  life,  we  are  influenced  by  probability  rather  than  loiow- 
ledge :  and  of  probability,  the  same  great  author  establishes  two 
foundations ;  a  conformity  to  our  own  experience,  and  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  others.  Now  it  is  contended,  that  by  the  opposition  of 
these  two  principles  probability  is  destroyed ;  or,  in  other  terms, 
that  human  testimony  can  never  influence  the  mind  to  assent  to  a 
proposition  repugnant  to  uniform  experience. — Whose  experience 
do  you  mean  ?  You  will  not  say,  your  own ;  for  the  experience  of 
an  individual  reaches  but  a  little  way  5  and,  no  doubt,  you  daily 
assent  to  a  thousand  truths  in  politics,  in  physics,  and  in  the  business 
of  common  life,  which  you  have  never  seen  verified  by  experience. 
— You  wall  not  produce  the  experience  of  your  friends ;  for  that  can 
extend  itself  but  a  little  W’ay  beyond  your  own. — But  by  uniform 
experience,  I  conceive,  you  are  desirous  of  understanding  the  expe¬ 
rience  of  all  ages  and  nations  since  the  foundation  of  the  world.  I 
answer,  first ;  how  is  it  that  you  become  acquainted  with  the  expe¬ 
rience  of  all  ages  and  nations?  You  will  reply,  from  history.  Be 
it  so  :  peruse  then  by  far  the  most  ancient  records  of  antiquity ;  and 
if  you  find  no  mention  of  miracles  in  them,  I  give  up  the  point.  Yes ; 
but  every  thing  related  therein  respecting  miracles  is  to  be  reckoned 
fabulous.  Why  ?  Because  miracles  contradict  the  experience  of  all 
ages  and  nations.  Do  you  not  perceive,  Sir,  that  you  beg  the  very 
question  in  debate  ?  for  we  affirm,  that  the  great  and  learned  nation 
of  Egypt,  that  the  heathen  inhabiting  the  land  of  Canaan,  that  the 
numerous  people  of  the  Jews,  and  the  nations  which,  for  ages,  sur¬ 
rounded  them,  have  all  had  great  experience  of  miracles.  You 
cannot  otherways  obviate  this  conclusion,  than  by  questioning  the 
authenticity  of  that  book,  concerning  which,  Newton,  when  he  was 
writing  his  commentaiy  on  Daniel,  expressed  himself  to  the  person'^ 
from  whom  I  had  the  anecdote,  and  which  deserves  not  to  be  lost : 


*  Dr.  Smith,  late  Master  of  Trinity  College. 


64 


Watsori’s  Apology 


“I  find  more  sure  marks  of  authenticity  in  the  Bible,  than  in  anv 
profane  history  whatsoever.”  ^ 

However,  I  mean  not  to  pre.ss  you  with  the  argument  ad  verecun 
K  ’  needless  to  solicit  your  modesty,  when  it  may  be  possible 
pel  naps,  to  make  an  impression  upon  your  judgment:  I  answer 
fiierelore  in  the  second  place,  that  the  admi^ion  of  the  principle 
by  which  you  reject  miracles  will  lead  us  into  absurdity.  The 
laws  ot  gravitation  are  the  most  obvious  of  all  the  laws  of  nature  • 

UnZFnrTnAh  ^f  the  globe  must  of  necessity  have  had 

tUo  1  hem.  There  was  a  time  when  no  one  was  acquainted 
ningnetism :  these  suspend  in  many  instances  the 
laws  ol  gravity  :  nor  can  I  see,  upon  the  principle  in  question,  how 
the  rest  of  mankind  could  have  credited  the  testimony  of  their  first 
d  P  rejected  it,  would  have  been  to  reject 

io  In  j  L  should  ascend  gradually  from 

increasing  rapidity  through  t^e  air  • 

cies  STmn  ^  n  of  a  partfcular  spe- 

cies  of  non  ore,  should  remain  suspended,  in  opposition  to  the  action 

ol  Its  gravity,  IS  consonant  to  the  laws  of  nature.  I  grant  it:  but 

natSeTit%o7h  •?  contrary,  I  say  not  to^the  laws  of 

nature,  but  to  the  umform  experience  of  all  preceding  aees  and 

imbvSf^i  particular  point  of  time,  the  testimony  of  an 

tbm^f  1  ''''  ^  individuals,  who  should  have  reported 

themselves  eye-witnesses  of  such  a  fact,  ought,  according  to  vC 
argumentation,  to  have  been  received  as  fabulous.  And  whafare 

SeThevTofdfffp'''''';^^'^^  suspended? 

are  they  not  different  to  different  men,  according  to  the  diversities 

i^iowledge?  and  if  any  one  of  them 
eleciriH?vrimTf’n'^^'‘?  operations  of  magnetism  or 

all  thP  r2  of  m  ^  ™o  ^lone,  whilst 

it  JniUd  ?  ^  unacquainted  with  it;  the  effects  of 

toTbP^Pv^  ®  ™heard-of  in  the  annals,  and  contrary 

to  the  experience  of  mankind;  and  therefore  ought  not,  in  your 

encp  S  believed.  Nor  do  I  understand  what  dXfer- 

S  n  *  *ere  could  be  betjveen  the  effects  of  such 

nature,  and  a  miracle ;  for  it  is  a  matter  of  no 
moment,  in  thiU  view,  whether  the  suspension  of  the  known  laws 
effected,  that  is,  whether  a  miracle  be  performed,  by 
th^e  mediation  of  other  laws  that  are  unknown,  or  by  the  ministi^ 
bJ  commissioned;  since  it  is  impossible  for  us  to 

tif  I  ’  contradictoiy  to  the  constitution  of  the  universe 

*SendedTTiH^r-'''’®V'^^“''^  appear  to  us  general,  should  not  be 
n  1  ^  ^  action  overruled  by  others,  still  more  general, 

ffiough  less  knovyn;  that  is,  that  miracles  should  not  be  performed 
before  such  a  being  as  man,  at  those  times,  in  those  places,  andTn- 
der  those  circumstances,  which  God,  in  his  universal  providence, 
had  preordained.  I  am,  &c.  ^  ’ 


for  Christianity. 


65 


I 

'  *  LETTER  IV. 

Sir  ; — I  readily  acknowledge  the  utility  of  yonr  fourth  cause, 
the  virtues  of  the  first  Christians,”  as  greatly  conducing  to  the 
spreading  of  their  religion ;  but  then  you  seem  to  quite  mar  the 
compliment  you  pay  them,  by  representing  their  virtues  as  proceed¬ 
ing  either  from  their  repentance  for  having  been  the  most  aban¬ 
doned  sinners,  or  from  the  laudable  desire  of  supporting  the  reputa¬ 
tion  of  the  society  in  which  they  were  engaged. 

That  repentance  is  the  first  step  to  virtue,  is  true  enough ;  but  I 
see  no  reason  for  supposing,  according  to  the  calumnies  of  Celsus 
and  Julian,  “that  the  Christians  allured  into  their  party  men,  who 
washed  away  in  the  waters  of  baptism  the  guilt  for  which  the  tem¬ 
ples  of  the  gods  refused  to  grant  them  any  expiation.”  The  apostles. 
Sir,  did  not,  like  Romulus,  open  an  asylum  for  debtors,  thieves,  and 
aiurderers;  for  they  had  not  the  same  sturdy  means  of  securing 
their  adherents  from  the  grasp  of  civil  power;  they  did  not  per¬ 
suade  them  to  abandon  the  temples  of  the  gods,  because  they  could 
there  obtain  no  expiation  for  their  guilt,  but  because  every  degree 
of  guilt  was  expiated  in  them  with  too  great  facility :  and  every 
vice  practised,  not  only  without  remorse  of  private  conscience,  but 
■  with  the  powerful  sanction  of  public  approbation. 

“  After  the  example,”  you  say,  “  of  their  Divine  Master,  the  mis¬ 
sionaries  of  the  Gospel  addressed  themselves  to  men,  and  especially 
to  women,  oppressed  by  the  consciousness,  and  very  often  by  the 
effects,  of  their  vices.” — This,  Sir,  I  really  think,  is  not  a  fair  repre¬ 
sentation  of  the  matter ;  it  may  catch  the  applause  of  the  unlearned, 
embolden  many  a  stripling  to  cast  off  for  ever  the  sweet  blush  of 
modesty,  confirm  many  a  dissolute  veteran  in  the  practice  of  his 
impure  habits,  and  suggest  great  occasion  of  merriment  and  wanton 
mockery  to  the  flagitious  of  every  denomination  and  every  age ;  but 
still  it  will  want  that  foundation  of  truth,  which  alone  can  recom¬ 
mend  it  to  the  serious  and  judicious.  The  apostles.  Sir,  were  not 
like  the  Italian  Fratricelli  of  the  thirteenth,  nor  the  French  Turlu- 
pins  of  the  fourteenth  century ;  in  all  the  dirt  that  has  been  raked 
up  against  Christianity,  even  by  the  worst  of  its  enemies,  not  a 
speck  of  that  kind  have  they  been  able  to  fix,  either  upon  the  apos¬ 
tles,  or  their  Divine  Master.  The  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  Sir,  was 
not  preached  in  single  houses  or  obscure  villages,  not  in  subterrane¬ 
ous  caves  and  impure  brothels,  not  in  lazars  and  in  prisons ;  but  in  the 
synagogues  and  in  the  temples,  in  the  streets  and  the  market-places  of 
the  great  capitals  of  the  Roman  provinces ;  in  Jerusalem,  in  Corinth, 
and  in  Antioch,  in  Athens,  in  Ephesus,  and  in  Rome.  Nor  do  I 
anywhere  find,  that  its  missionaries  were  ordered  particularly  to 
address  themselves  to  the  shameless  w'omen  you  mention ;  I  do  in¬ 
deed  find  the  direct  contrary ;  for  they  were  ordered  to  turn  away 
from,  to  have  no  fellowship  or  intercourse  with  such  as  were  wont 
“  to  creep  into  houses,  and  lead  captive  silly  w'omen  laden  with 
F2 


66 


Watson’' s  Apology 

sins,  led  away  with  divers  lusts.”  And  what  if  a  few  women,  who  j 
had  either  been  seduced  by  their  passions,  or  had  fallen  victims  to  i 
the  licentious  manners  of  their  age,  should  be  found  amongst  those  | 
who  were  most  ready  to  receive  a  religion  that  forbad  all  impurity  ? 

I  do  not  apprehend  that  this  circumstance  ought  to  bring  an  insinua¬ 
tion  of  discredit,  either  upon  the  sex,  or  upon  those  who  wrought 
their  reformation. 

That  the  majority  of  the  first  converts  to  Christianity  were  of  an 
inferior  condition  in  life  may  readily  be  allowed  ;  and  you  yourself  ! 
have  in  another  place  given  a  good  reason  for  it ;  those  who  are 
distinguished  by  riches,  honors,  or  knowledge,  being  so  very  incon¬ 
siderable  in  number  when  compared  with  the  bulk  of  mankind : 
but  though  not  many  mighty,  not  many  noble  were  called ;  yet 
some  mighty,  and  some  noble,  some  of  as  great  reputation  as  any  of 
the  age  in  which  they  lived,  were  attached  to  the  Christian  faith. 
Short  indeed  are  the  accounts,  which  have  been  transmitted  to  us, 
of  the  first  propagating  of  Christianity ;  yet  even  in  these  we  meet 
with  the  names  of  many,  who  would  have  done  credit  to  any  cause  : 

I  will  not  pretend  to  enumerate  them  all ;  a  few  of  them  will  be 
sufficient  to  make  you  recollect,  that  there  w^ere,  at  least,  some  con¬ 
verts  to  Christianity,  both  from  among  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles, 
whose  lives  wmre  not  stained  with  inexpiable  crimes.  Amongst 
these  wm  reckon  Nicodemus.  a  ruler  of  the  Jews  ;  Joseph  of  Ari- 
mathea,  a  man  of  fortune  and  a  counsellor ;  a  nobleman  and  a  cen¬ 
turion  of  Capernaum;  Jairus,  Crispus,  Sosthenes,  rulers  of  syna¬ 
gogues  ;  Apollos,  an  eloquent  and  learned  man ;  Zenas,  a  Jewish 
lawyer ;  the  treasurer  of  Candace  queen  of  ^Ethiopia ;  Cornelius,  a 
centurion  of  the  Italian  band;  Dionysius,  a  member  of  the  Are¬ 
opagus  at  Athens ;  and  Sergius  Paulus,  a  man  of  proconsular  or 
prEetorian  authority,  of  whom  it  may  be  remarked,  that  if  he  re¬ 
signed  his  high  and  lucrative  office,  in  consequence  of  his  turning 
Christian,  it  is  a  strong  presumption  in  its  favor ;  if  he  retained  it, 
wm  may  conclude,  that  the  profession  of  Christiarrity  was  not  so 
utterly  incompatible  with  the  discharge  of  the  offices  of  civil  life  as 
you  sometimes  represent  it.  This  catalogue  of  men  of  rank,  for¬ 
tune,  and  knowledge,  who  embraced  Christianity,  might,  was  it 
necessary,  be  much  enlarged ;  and  probably  another  conversation 
with  St.  Paul  wmuld  have  enabled  us  to  grace  it  with  the  names  of 
Festus,  and  king  Agrippa  himself:  not  that  the  writers  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  seem  to  have  been  at  all  solicitous  in  men¬ 
tioning  the  great  or  the  learned  who  were  converted  to  the  faith ; 
had  that  been  part  of  their  design,  they  would,  in  the  true  style  of 
impostors,  have  kept  out  of  sight  the  publicans  and  sinners,  the  tanners 
and  the  tentmakers,  with  whom  they  conversed  and  dwelt ;  and  intro¬ 
duced  to  our  notice  none  but  those  who  had  been  “  brought  up  with 
Herod,  or  the  chief  men  of  Asia” — whom  they  had  the  honor  to 
number  amongst  their  friends. 

That  the  primitive  Christians  took  great  care  to  have  an  unsullied 
reputation,  by  abstaining  from  the  commission  of  whatever  might 
lend  to  pollute  it,  is  easily  admitted ;  but  wm  do  not  so  easily  grant, 


67 


for  Christianity. 

that  this  care  is  a  “  circumstance  which  usually  attends  small  as¬ 
semblies  of  men,  when  they  separate  themselves  from  the  body  of 
a  nation,  or  the  religion  to  which  they  belonged.”  It  did  not  attend 
the  Nicolaitanes,  the  Simonians,  the  Menandrians,  and  the  Carpo- 
cratians  in  the  first  ages  of  the  church,  of  which  you  are  speaking  ; 
and  it  cannot  be  unknowm  to  you,  Sir,  that  the  scandalous  vices  of 
these  very  early  sectaries  brought  a  general  and  undistinguished 
censure  upon  the  Christian  name ;  and,  so  far  from  promoting  the 
increase  of  the  church,  excited  in  the  minds  of  the  Pagans  an  ab¬ 
horrence  of  whatever  respected  it :  it  cannot  be  unknown  to  you, 
Sir,  that  several  sectaries  both  at  home  and  abroad  might  be  men¬ 
tioned,  who  have  departed  from  the  religion  to  which  they  be¬ 
longed  ;  and  which,  unhappily  for  themselves  and  the  community, 
have  taken  as  little  care  to  preserve  their  reputation  unspotted  as 
those  of  the  first  and  second  centuries.  If  then  the  first  Christians 
did  take  the  care  you  mention  (and  I  am  wholly  of  your  opinion  in 
that  point),  their  solicitude  might  as  candidly,  perhaps,  and  as  rea¬ 
sonably  be  derived  from  a  sense  of  their  duty,  and  an  honest  en¬ 
deavor  to  discharge  it,  as  from  the  mere  desire  of  increasing  the 
honor  of  their  confraternity  by  the  illustrious  integrity  of  its  mem¬ 
bers. 

You  are  eloquent  in  describing  the  austere  morality  of  the  primi¬ 
tive  Christians,  as  adverse  to  the  propensities  of  sense,  and  abhor¬ 
rent  from  all  the  innocent  pleasures  and  amusements  of  life ;  and 
you  enlarge,  whh  a  studied  minuteness,  upon  their  censures  of  lux¬ 
ury,  and  their  sentiments  concerning  marriage  and  chastity :  but  in 
this  circumstantial  enumeration  of  their  errors  or  their  faults  (which 
I  am  under  no  necessity  of  denying  or  excusing)  you  seem  to  forget 
the  very  purpose  for  which  you  profess  to  have  introduced  the  men¬ 
tion  of  them  ;  for  the  picture  you  have  drawn  is  so  hideous,  and  the 
coloring  so  dismal,  that  instead  of  alluring  to  a  closer  inspection,  it 
must  have  made  every  man  of  pleasure  or  of  sense  turn  from  it 
with  horror  or  disgust ;  and  so  far  from  contributing  to  the  rapid 
growth  of  Christianity  by  the  austerity  of  their  manners,  it  must  be 
a  wonder  to  any  one,  how  the  first  Christians  ever  made  a  single 
convert.  It  was  first  objected  by  Celsus,  that  Christianity  was  a 
mean  religion,  inculcating  such  a  pusillanimity  and  patience  under 
affronts,  such  a  contempt  of  riches  and  worldly  honors,  as  must 
weaken  the  nerves  of  civil  government,  and  expose  a  society  of 
Christians  to  the  prey  of  the  first  invaders.  This  objection  has 
been  repeated  by  Bayle ;  and  though  fully  answered  by  Bernard 
and  others,  it  is  still  the  favorite  theme  of  every  esprit  fort  of  our 
owm  age :  even  you.  Sir,  think  the  aversion  of  Christians  to  the 
business  of  war  and  government,  “a  criminal  disregard  to  the 
public  welfare.”  To  all  that  has  been  said  upon  this  subject  it  may 
with  justice,  I  think,  be  answered,  that  Christianity  troubles  not 
itself  with  ordering  the  constitutions  of  civil  societies,  but  levels  the 
weight  of  all  ite  influence  at  the  hearts  of  the  individuals  which 
compose  them ;  and,  as  Origen  said  to  Celsus,  was  every  individual 
in  every  nation  a  Gospel  Christian,  there  w'ould  be  neither  internal 


68 


Watsori^s  Apology 


injustice,  nor  external  war;  there  would  be  none  of  those  passions 
which  embitter  the  intercourses  of  civil  life,  and  desolate  the  globe! 

trin^  li  ^  religion,  that  it  inculcatef  doc- 

tiines,  which,  if  universally  practised,  would  introduce  universal 

? r  exalted  happiness  amongst  mankind  ? 

^  misapprehension  of  the  design  of  the 

Christian  dispensation,  or  from  a  very  ignorant  interpretation  of  the 
particular  injunctions,  forbidding  us  to  make  riches  or  honors  a 
piimary  pursuit,  or  the  prompt  gratification  of  revenge  a  first  prin- 

W?  ?ehlio?troffer  individual  Christian  is  obliged  by 

^  ^  a  ^  assassin,  and  his  property  to  the 

p  underer ;  or  that  a  society  of  Christians  may  not  repe^  in  the 
best  manner  they  are  able,  the  unjust  assaults  of  LstileSsion 
tbp  precepts  in  the  Gospel,  which  debar  a  man  from 

the  possession  of  domestic  comforts,  or  deaden  the  activilv  of  bis 
private  friendships,  or  prohibit  the  exertion  of  his  utmost  ability  in 

the  Cbris'tW  heatum  is  no  part  of 

the  Christian  s  creed :  his  virtue  is  an  active  virtue ;  and  we^iustlv 

refer  to  the  school  of  Epicurus  the  doctrines  concerning  abstinence 

moot  of cultivation  of  friendship,  from  the  manage! 
ment  of  public  affairs,  as  suited  to  that  selfish  indolence  which  was 
the  favonte  tenet  of  his  philosophy.  I  am,  &c. 


LETTER  V. 

union  and  the  discipline  of  the  Christian  church  ” 
or,  as  you  are  pleased  to  style  it,  of  the  Christian  republic,  is  the  last 
of  the  five  secondary  causes,  to  which  you  have  referred  the  ?aS 
and  extensive  spread  of  Christianity.  ^It  must  be  acSiowleS 
that  union  essentially  contributes  to  the  strength  of  every  asso^ia’ 

religious  ;  but,  unfortulately  for  JSur  argu¬ 
ment,  and  much  to  the  reproach  of  Christians,  nothing\as  be^en 
more  wanting  amongst  them,  from  the  apostolic  age  to  our  own 
than  union.^  ^  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  CephL,Zd 

I  of  Christ,  are  expressions  of  disunion,  which  we  meet  with  in  the 
earliest  period  of  church  history :  and  we  cannot  look  into  the  writ- 
mgs  of  any,  either  friend  or  foe  to  Christianity,  but  we  find  the  one 
of  them  lamenting,  and  the  other  exulting  in  an  immense  catalogue 
of  sectaries  i  and  lx.th  of  them  thereby  fumishtorus  w^AgStt 

the  divisions  Avith  respect  to  doctrine,  wor¬ 
ship,  and  discipline,  which  have  ever  subsisted  in  the  church,  must 

fteSs  orS’e'^renfW*®  Christianity,  and  to  alienate 

grant,  that  there  was  a  certain  community  of  doctrine, 
an  intercourse  of  hospitality,  and  a  confederacy  of  discipline  estab- 


for  Christianity.  69 

listied  amongst  the  individuals  of  every  church;  so  that  none  could 
be  admitted  into  any  assembly  of  Christians,  without  undergoing  a 
previous  examination  into  his  manner  of  life"^  (which  shows,  by  the 
by,  that  every  reprobate  could  not,  as  the  fit  seized  him,  or  his  inte¬ 
rest  induced  him,  become  a  Christian),  and  without  protesting  in  the 
most  solemn  manner,  that  he  would  neither  be  guilty  of  murder, 
nor  adultery,  nor  theft,  nor  perfidy ;  and  it  may  be  granted  also,  that 
those,  who  broke  this  compact,  were  ejected  by  common  consent 
from  the  confraternity  into  which  they  had  been  admitted :  it  may 
be  farther  granted,  that  this  confederacy  extended  itself  to  inde¬ 
pendent  churches ;  and  that  those  who  had,  for  their  immoralities, 
been  excluded  from  Christian  community  in  any  one  church,  were 
rarely,  if  ever,  admitted  to  it  by  another;  just  as  a  member  who 
has  been  expelled  any  one  college  in  a  university,  is  generally 
thought  unworthy  of  being  admitted  by  any  other ;  but  it  is  not  ad¬ 
mitted,  that  this  severity  and  this  union  of  disciphne  could  ever 
have  induced  the  Pagans  to  forsake  the  gods  of  their  countiy,  and 
to  expose  themselves  to  the  contemptuous  hatred  of  their  neighbors, 
and  to  all  the  severities  of  persecution,  exercised,  with  unrelenting 
barbarity,  against  the  Christians. 

The  account  you  give  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  episcopal 
jurisdiction,  of  the  pre-eminence  of  the  metropolitan  churches,  and 
of  the  ambition  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  I  believe  to  be  in  general  ac¬ 
curate  and  true ;  and  I  am  not  in  the  least  surprised  at  the  bitter¬ 
ness  which  now  and  then  escapes  you  in  treating  this  subject :  for 
to  see  the  most  benign  religion,  that  imagination  can  form,  becoming 
an  instrument  of  oppression ;  and  the  most  humble  one  adm-inister- 
ing  to  the  pride,  the  avarice,  and  the  ambition  of  those  who  wished 
to  be  considered  as  its  guardians,  and  who  avowed  themselves  its 
professors,  would  extort  a  censure  from  men  more  attached  probably 
to  church  authority  than  yourself :  not  that  I  think  it  either  a  very 
candid,  or  a  very  useful  undertaking,  to  be  solely  and  industriously 
engaged  in  portraying  the  characters  of  the  professors  of  Christianity 
in  the  worst  colors ;  it  is  not  candid,  because  ‘  the  great  law  of  im¬ 
partiality,  which  obliges  an  historian  to  reveal  the  imperfections  of 
the  uninspired  teachers  and  believers  of  the  Gospel,”  obliges  him 
also  not  to  conceal,  or  to  pass  over  with  niggard  and  reluctant  men¬ 
tion,  the  illustrious  virtues  of  those  who  gave  up  fortune  and  fame, 
atl  their  comforts,  and  all  their  hopes  in  this  life,  nay,  life  itself, 
rather  than  violate  aiw  one  of  the  precepts  of  that  Gospel,  which, 
from  the  testimony  of  inspired  teachers,  they  conceived  they  had 
good  reason  to  believe :  it  is  not  useful,  because  “  to  a  careless  ob¬ 
server,”  (that  is,  to  the  generality  of  mankind)  '‘their  faults  may 
seem  to  cast  a  shade  on  the  faith  which  they  professed  ;”  and  may 
really  infect  the  minds  of  the  young  and  unlearned  especially,  with 
prejudices  against  a  religion,  upon  their  rational  reception  or  rejec- 


*  Nonnulli  prcepositi  sunt,  qui  in  vitam  et  mores  eorum,  qui  admit- 
tuntur,  inquirant,  ut  non  concessa  facientes  candidates  religionis  ar-. 
ceant  a  suis  conventibiis.  Orig.  con.  Cels,  lib  ii. 

5 


70  Walsori's  Apology 

tion  of  which,  a  matter  of  the  utmost  importance  may  (believe  me, 
Sir,  it  may,  for  aught  you  or  any  person  else  can  prove  to  the  con¬ 
trary)  entirely  depend.  It  is  an  easy  matter  to  amuse  oin-selves  and 
others  with  the  immoralities  of  priests  and  the  ambition  of  prelates, 
with  the  absurd  virulence  of  synods  and  councils,  with  the  ridicu¬ 
lous  doctrines  which  visionary  enthusiasts  or  interested  churchmen 
have  sanctified  with  the  name  of  Christian ;  but  a  display  of  inge¬ 
nuity  or  erudition  upon  such  subjects  is  much  misplaced  ;  since  it 
excites,  almost  in  every  person,  an  unavoidable  suspicion  of  the 
purity  of  the  source  itself,  from  which  such  polluted  streams  have 
been  derived.  Do  not  mistake  my  meaning ;  I  am  far  from  wishing 
that  the  clergy  should  be  looked  up  to  with  a  blind  reverence,  or 
their  imperfections  screened  by  the  sanctity  of  their  functions,  from 
the  animadversion  of  the  world  ;  quite  the  contrary ;  their  conduct, 
I  am  of  opinion,  ought  to  be  more  nicely  scrutinized,  and  their  de¬ 
viation  from  the  rectitude  of  the  Gospel  more  severely  censured, 
than  that  of  other  men ;  but  great  care  should  be  taken,  not  to 
represent  their  vices,  or  their  indiscretions,  as  originating  in  the 
principles  of  their  religion.  Do  not  mistake  me :  I  am  not  here  beg¬ 
ging  quarter  for  Christianity ;  or  contending,  that  even  the  princi¬ 
ples  of  our  religion  should  be  received  with  implicit  faith ;  or  that 
every  objection  to  Christianity  should  be  stifled,  by  a  representation 
of  the  mischief  it  might  do  if  publicly  promulged  :  on  the  contrary, 
we  invite,  nay,  we  challenge  you,  to  a  direct  and  liberal  attack ; 
though  oblique  glances,  and  disingenuous  insinuations,  we  are  will¬ 
ing  to  avoid ;  well  knowing,  that  the  character  of  our  religion,  like 
that  of  an  honest  man,  is  defended  with  greater  difficulty  against  the 
suggestions  of  ridicule,  and  the  secret  malignity  of  pretended  friends, 
than  against  positive  accusations,  and  the  avowed  malice  of  open 
enemies. 

In  your  account  of  the  primitive  church  you  set  forth,  that  “  the 
want  of  discipline  and  human  learning  was  supplied  by  the  occa¬ 
sional  assistance  of  the  prophets  ;  who  were  called  to  that  function 
without  distinction  of  age,  sex,  or  natural  abilities.” — That  the  gift 
of  prophecy  was  one  of  the  spiritual  gifts  by  which  some  of  the  first 
Christians  were  enabled  to  co-operate  with  the  apostles  in  the  gene¬ 
ral  design  of  preaching  the  Gospel ;  and  that  this  gift,  or  rather,  as 
Mr.  Locke  thinks,  the  gift  of  tongues  (by  the  ostentation  of  which, 
many  of  them  were  prompted  to  speak  in  their  assemblies  at  the 
same  time),  was  the  occasion  of  some  disorder  in  the  church  of 
Corinth,  which  required  the  interposition  of  the  apostle  to  compose, 
is  confessed  on  all  hands.  But  if  you  mean,  that  the  prophets  w'ere 
ever  the  sole  pastors  of  the  faithful;  or  that  no  provision  was  made 
by  the  apostles  for  the  good  government  and  edification  of  the 
church,  except  what  might  be  accidentally  derived  from  the  occa¬ 
sional  assistance  of  the  prophets,  you  are  much  mistaken ;  and  have 
undoubtedly  forgot  what  is  said  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  having  or¬ 
dained  elders  in  Lystra,  Iconium,  and  Antioch ;  and  of  Paul’s  com¬ 
mission  to  Titus,  whom  he  had  left  in  Crete,  to  ordain  elders  in 
every  city  ;  and  of  his  instructions  both  to  him  and  Timothy,  con 


for  Christianity. 


71 

cemiiig  the  qualiilcations  of  those  whom  they  were  to  appoint 
bishops ;  one  ol  which  was,  that  a  bishop  should  be  able,  by  sound 
cwctrine,  to  exhort  and  to  convince  the  gainsayer.  Nor  is  it  said 
that  this  sound  doctrine  was  to  be  conununicated  to  the  bishop  by 
j^oph^y,  or  that  all  persons,  without  distinction,  might  be  called  to 
that  ofhce;  but  a  bishop  was  “to  be  able  to  teach,”  not  what  he 
had  learned  by  prophecy,  but  what  Paul  had  publicly  preached ; 

the  things  that  thou  hast  heard  of  me  among  many  witnesses,  the 
same  comnut  thou  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others 
mso.  And  in  evety  place  almost,  where  prophets  are  mentioned, 
they  are  jomed  \\ath  apostles  and  teachers,  and  other  ministers  of 
the  Gospel ;  so  that  there  is  no  reason  for  your  representing  them  as 
a  IS  met  order  of  men,  who  were  by  their  occasional  assistance  to 
supply  the  want  of  discipline  and  human  learning  in  the  church. 
It  would  be  taking  too  large  a  field  to  inquire,  whether  the  prophets 
you  speak  of  w^ere  endowed  with  ordinary  or  extraordinary  gifts  : 
whether  they  always  spoke  by  the  immediate  impulse  of  the  Spirit, 
c  Tir®  “the  analogy  of faitli;”  whether  their  gift  consisted 
m  the  foretelling  of  future  events,  or  in  the  interpreting  of  Scripture 
to  the  edification  and  exhortafion  and  comfort  of  the  church,  or  in 
both ;  I  will  content  myself  with  observing,  that  he  will  judge  vei-y 
improperly  concerning  ^e  prophets  of  the  apostolic  church,  who 
them  of  their  office  or  importance  from  your  description  of 

In  speaking  of  the  community  of  goods,  which,  you  say,  was 
adopted  for  a  short  time  m  the  primitive  church,  you  hold  as  incon- 
elusive  the  arguments  of  Mosheim ;  who  has  endeavored  to  prove, 
tliat  It  was  a  community  quite  different  from  that  recommended  by 
Pythagoras  or  Plato ;  consisting  principally  in  a  common  use,  derived 
from  an  unbounded  liberality,  which  induced  the  opulent  to  share 
their  nches  with  their  indigent  brethren.  There  have  been  others, 
as  well  as  Mosheim,  who  have  entertained  this  opinion;  and  it  is 
not  quite  so  indefensible  as  you  represent  it ;  but  whether  it  be 
easonable  or  absurd,  need  not  now  be  examined ;  it  is  far  more 
necessary  to  take  notice  of  an  expression  which  you  have  used,  and 
wmeh  may  be  apt  to  mislead  unwary  readers  into  a  very  injurious 
suspicion  concerning  the  integrity  of  the  apostles.  In  process  of 
ime,  you  observe,  “  the  converts  who  embraced  the  new  religion 

were  permitted  to  retain  the  possession  of  their  patrimony.” _ This 

expression,  “perniitted  to  retain,”  in  ordinary  acceptation,  implies 
an  antecedent  obligation  to  part  with:  now.  Sir,  I  have  not  the 
shadow  of  a  doubt  in  alfii-mmg,  that  we  have  no  account  in  Scrip- 
ure  of  any  such  obli^tiqn  being  imposed  upon  the  converts  to 
Christianity,  either  by  Christ  himself,  or  by  his  apostles,  or  by  any 
other  authority;  nay,  m  the  very  place  where  this  community  of 
goods  IS  treated  of,  there  is  an  express  proof  (I  know  not  how  your 
impartiality  has  happened  to  overlook  it)  to  the  contraiy.  When 
reter  was  about  to  inflict  an  exemplary  punishment  upon  Ananias 
(not  for  keeping  back  a  part  of  the  price,  as  some  men  are  fond  of 
representing  it,  but)  for  his  lying  and  hypocrisy,  in  offering  a  part 


72 


Watsoii's  Apology 


of  the  price  of  his  land  as  the  whole  of  it ;  he  said  to  him,  “  Whilst 
it  remained  (unsold)  was  it  not  thine  own  ?  and  after  it  was  sold, 
was  it  not  in  thine  own  power?”  From  this  account  it  is  evident, 
that  Ananias  was  under  no  obligation  to  part  with  his  patrimony ; 
and,  after  he  had  parted  with  it,  the  price  was  in  his  own  power : 
the  apostle  would  have  “  permitted  him  to  retain”  the  whole  of  it, 
if  he  had  thought  fit  ,•  though  he  would  not  permit  his  prevarication 
to  go  unpunished. 

You  have  remarked,  that  “  the  feasts  of  love,  the  agapce,  as  they 
were  called,  constituted  a  very  pleasing  and  essential  part  of  public 
worship.” — Lest  any  one  should  from  hence  be  led  to  suspect,  that 
these  feasts  of  love,  this  pleasing  part  of  the  public  worship  of  the 
primitive  church,  resembled  the  unhallowed  meetings  of  some  im¬ 
pure  sectaries  of  our  own  times,  I  will  take  the  liberty  to  add  to 
your  account  a  short  explication  of  the  nature  of  these  agapae. 
Tertullian,  in  the  39th  chapter  of  his  Apology,  has  done  it  to  my 
hands.  “  The  nature  of  our  supper,”  says  he,  “  is  indicated  by  its 
name ;  it  is  called  by  a  word,  which,  in  the  Greek  language,  signi¬ 
fies  love.  We  are  not  anxious  about  the  expense  of  the  entertain¬ 
ment  ;  since  we  look  upon  that  as  gain  which  is  expended  with  a 
pious  purpose,  in  the  relief  and  refreshment  of  all  our  indigent. — 
The  occasion  of  our  entertainment  being  so  honorable,  you  may 
judge  of  the  manner  of  its  being  conducted :  it  consists  in  the  dis¬ 
charge  of  religious  duties  ;  it  admits  nothing  vile,  nothing  immodest. 
Before  we  sit  down,  prayer  is  made  to  God.  The  hungry  eat  as 
much  as  they  desire,  and  eveiy  one  drinks  as  much  as  can  be  useful 
to  sober  men.  We  so  feast,  as  men  who  have  their  minds  impressed 
with  the  idea  of  spending  the  night  in  the  worship  of  God ;  we  so 
converse,  as  men  who  are  conscious  that  the  Lord  heareth  them,” 
&c.  Perhaps  you  may  object  to  this  testimony  in  favor  of  the  in¬ 
nocence  of  Christian  meetings,  as  liable  to  partiality,  because  it  is 
the  testimony  of  a  Christian;  and  you  may,  perhaps,  be  able  to 

{)ick  out,  from  the  writings  of  this  Christian,  something  that  looks 
ike  a  contradiction  of  this  account :  however,  I  will  rest  the  matter 
upon  this  testimony  for  the  present ;  forbearing  to  quote  any  other 
Christian  writer  upon  the  subject,  as  I  shall  in  a  future  Letter  pro¬ 
duce  you  a  testimony  superior  to  every  objection.  You  speak  too 
of  the  agapiE  as  an  essential  part  of  the  public  worship  :  this  is  not 
acco^ing  to  your  usual  accuracy ;  for,  had  they  been  essential,  the 
edict  of  a  Heathen  magistrate  would  not  have  been  able  to  put  a 
stop  to  them  ;  yet  Pliny,  in  his  letter  to  Trajan,  expressly  says,  that 
the  Christians  left  them  off  upon  his  publishing  an  edict  prohibiting 
assemblies  ;  and  we  know,  that,  in  the  council  of  Carthage,  in  the 
fourth  century,  on.  account  of  the  abuses  which  attended  them, 
they  began  to  be  interdicted,  and  ceased  almost  universally  in  the 
fifth. 

I  have  but  two  observations  to  make  upon  what  you  have  ad¬ 
vanced  concerning  the  severity  of  ecclesiastical  penance  :  the  first 
is,  that  even  you  yourself  do  not  deduce  its  institution  from  the 
Scripture,  but  from  the  power  which  eveiy  voluntary  society  has 


73 


for  Christianity. 

over  its  own  members ;  and  therefore,  however  extravagant,  or 
however  absurd ;  however  opposite  to  the  attributes  of  a  commis¬ 
erating  God,  or  the  feelings  of  a  fallible  man,  it  may  be  thought;  or 
upon  whatever  trivial  occasion,  such  as  that  you  mention  of  calum¬ 
niating  a  bishop,  a  presbyter,  or  even  a  deacon,  it  may  have  been 
inflicted ;  Christ  and  his  apostles  are  not  answerable  for  it.  The 
other  is,  that  it  was,  of  all  possible  expedients,  the  least  fitted  to  ac¬ 
complish  the  end  for  which  you  think  it  was  introduced,  the  propa 
gation  of  Christianity.  The  sight  of  a  penitent  humbled  by  a  pub¬ 
lic  confession,  emaciated  by  fasting,  clothed  in  sackcloth,  prostrated 
at  the  door  of  the  assembly,  and  imploring  for  years  together  the 
pardon  of  his  offences,  and  a  readmission  into  the  bosom  of  the 
church,  was  a  much  more  likely  means  of  deterring  the  Pagans 
from  Christian  community,  than  the  pious  liberality  you  mention 
was  of  alluring  them  into  it.  This  pious  liberality.  Sir,  would  ex¬ 
haust  even  your  elegant  powers  of  description,  before  yOu  could 
exhibit  it  in  the  amiable  manner  it  deserves ;  it  is  derived  from  the 
“  new  commandment  of  loving  one  another and  it  has  ever  been 
the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  Christians,  as  opposed  to  every 
other  denomination  of  men,  Jew’s,  Mahometans,  or  Pagans.  In  the 
times  of  the  apostles,  and  in  the  first  ages  of  the  church,  it  showed 
itself  in  voluntary  contributions  for  the  relief  of  the  poor  and  the 
persecuted,  the  infirm  and  the  unfortunate ;  as  soon  as  the  church 
was  permitted  to  have  permanent  possessions  in  land,  and  acquired 
the  protection  of  the  civil  power,  it  exerted  itself  in  the  erection  of 
hospitals  of  every  kind  ;  institutions  these,  of  charity  and  humanity, 
w’liich  were  forgotten  in  the  laws  of  Solon  and  Lycurgus ;  and  for 
even  one  example  of  which,  you  will,  I  believe,  in  vain  explore  the 
boasted  annals  of  Pagan  Rome.  Indeed,  Sir,  you  will  think  too 
injuriously  of  this  liberality,  if  you  look  upon  its  origin  as  supersti¬ 
tious  ;  or  upon  its  application  as  an  artifice  of  the  priesthood,  to  se¬ 
duce  the  indigent  into  the  bosom  of  the  church ;  it  was  the  pure 
and  uncorrupted  fruit  of  genuine  Christianity. 

You  are  much  surprised,  and  not  a  little  concerned,  that  Tacitus 
and  the  younger  Pliny  have  spoken  so  slightly  of  the  Christian  sys¬ 
tem  ;  and  that  Seneca  and  the  elder  Pliny  have  not  vouchsafed  to 
mention  it  at  all.  This  difficulty  seems  to  have  struck  others,  as 
well  as  yourself;  and  I  might  refer  you  to  the  conclusion  of  the 
second  volume  of  Dr.  Lardner’s  Collection  of  Ancient  Jewish  and 
Heathen  Testimonies  to  the  Truth  of  the  Christian  Religion,  for  full 
satisfaction  in  this  point ;  but  perhaps  an  observation  or  two  may  be 
sufficient  to  diminish  your  surprise. 

Obscure  sectaries  of  upright  morals,  when  they  separate  them¬ 
selves  from  the  religion  of  their  country,  do  not  speedily  acquire 
the  attention  of  men  of  letters.  The  historians  are  appreltensive 
of  depreciating  the  dignity  of  their  learned  labor,  and  contami¬ 
nating  their  splendid  narration  of  illustrious  events,  by  mixing  with 
it  a  disgusting  detail  of  religious  combinations :  and  the  philosophers 
are  usually  too  deeply  engaged  in  abstract  science,  or  in  exploring 
the  infinite  intricacy  of  natural  appearances,  to  busy  themselves 

G 


74 


Watson^s  Apology 

with  what  they,  perhaps  hastily,  esteem  popular  superstitions.  His¬ 
torians  and  philosophers,  of  no  mean  reputation,  might  be  mention¬ 
ed,  I  believe,  who  were  the  contemporaries  of  Luther  and  the  first 
reformers ;  and  who  have  passed  over,  in  negligent  or  contemptuous 
silence,  their  daring  and  unpopular  attempts  to  shake  the  stability 
of  fet.  Peter  s  chair.  Opposition  to  the  religion  of  a  people  must 
become  general,  before  it  can  deserve  the  notice  of  the  civil  ma¬ 
gistrate  ;  and  till  it  does  that,  it  will  mostly  be  thought  below  the 
animadversion  of  distinguished  writers.  This  remark  is  peculiarly 
applicable  to  the  case  in  point.  The  first  Christians,  as  Christ  had 
foretold,  were  “hated  of  all  men  for  his  name’s  sake:”  it  was  the 
name  itself,  not  any  vices  adhering  to  the  name,  which  Pliny  pun¬ 
ished  ;  and  they  w'ere  everywhere  held  in  exceeding  contempt,  till 
their  numbers  excited  the  apprehension  of  the  ruling  powders.  The 
philosophers  considered  them  as  enthusiasts,  and  neglected  them ; 
the  priests  opposed  them  as  innovators,  and  calumniated  them ;  the 
great  overlooked  them,  the  learned  despised  them;  and  the  curious 
alone,  who  examined  into  the  foundation  of  their  faith,  believed 
them.  But  the  negligence  of  some  half  dozen  of  writers  (most  of 
them,  how^ever,  bear  incidental  testimony  to  the  truth  of  several 
facts  respecting  Christianity),  in  not  relating  circumstantially  the 
origin,  the  progress,  and  the  pretensions  of  a  new  sect,  is  a  very 
insufficient  reason  for  questioning,  either  the  evidence  of  the  prin¬ 
ciples  upon  which  it  was  built,  or  the  supernatural  power  by  which 
It  was  supported.  ^ 

The  Roman  historians,  rnoreover,  were  not  only  culpably  incu¬ 
rious  concerning  the  Christians,  but  unpardonably  ignorant  of  what 
concerned  either  them  or  the  Jews :  I  say,  unpardonably  ignorant ; 
because  the  means  of  information  were  within  their  reach :  the 
writings  of  Moses  were  eve^where  to  be  had  in  Greek ;  and  the 
works  of  Josephus  were  published  before  Tacitus  wrote  his  history; 
and  yet  even  Tacitus  has  fallen  into  great  absurdity,  and  self-con¬ 
tradiction,  in  his  account  of  the  Jews ;  and  though  Tertiillian’s 
zeal  carried  him  much  too  far,  when  he  called  him  Mendaciurum 
loquacisstmus,  yet  one  cannot  help  regretting  the  little  pains  he  took 
to  acqnire  proper  information  upon  that  subject.  He  derives  the 
mime  of  the  Jew’s,  by  a  forced  interpolation,  from  mount  Ida  in 
Crete  ;*  and  he  represents  them  as  abhorring  all  Idnds  of  images 
in  public  worship,  and  yet  accuses  them  of  having  placed  the  image 
of  an  ass  in  the  holy  of  holies ;  and  presently  after  he  tells  us,  that 
Rompey,  when  he  profaned  the  temple,  found  the  sanctuary  entirely 
empty.  Similar  inaccuracies^  might  be  noticed  in  Plutarch,  and 
other  writers  who  have  spoken  of  the  Jew’s;  and  you  yourself  have 
referred  to  an  obscure  passage  in  Suetonius,  as  offering  a  proof  how 
strangely  the  Jews  and  Christians  of  Rome  were  confounded  with 
each  other,  ’^y  then  should  W’e  think  it  remarkable,  that  a  few 
celebrated  writers,  w’ho  looked  upon  the  Christians  as  an  obscure 


*  Inclytum  in  Greta  Warn  rnontem,  accolas  Waeos  aucto  in  barbarum 
cognomeiito  Judcecs  vocitari.  Tac.  Hist.  lib.  5,  sub  init. 


75 


for  Christianity. 

sect  of  the  Jews,  and  upon  the  Jews  as  a  barbarous  and  detested 
people,  whose  history  was  not  worth  the  perusal,  and  who  were 
moreover  engaged  in  the  relation  of  the  great  events  which  either 
occasioned  or  accompanied  the  ruin  of  their  eternal  empire  ;  why 
should  we  be  surprised,  that  men  occupied  in  such  interesting  sub¬ 
jects,  and  influenced  by  such  inveterate  prejudices,  should  have  left 
us  but  short  and  imperfect  descriptions  of  the  Christian  system  ? 

“  But  how  shall  we  excuse,”  you  say,  “  the  supine  inattention  of 
the  Pagan  and  philosophic  W'orld,  to  those  evidences,  which  were 
presented  by  the  hand  of  Omnipotence,  not  to  their  reason,  but  to 
their  senses  ?”  “  The  laws  of  nature  were  perpetually  suspended  for 
the  benefit  of  the  church:  but  the  sages  of  Greece  and  Rome 
turned  aside  from  the  awful  spectacle.”  To  their  shame  be  it  spoken, 
that  they  did  so :  “  and,  pursuing  the  ordinary  occupations  of  life 
and  study,  appeared  unconscious  of  any  alterations  in  the  moral  or 
physical  government  of  the  w'orld.”  To  this  objection  I  answer,  in 
the  first  place,  that  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  miracles  w^ere 
performed  as  often  as  philosophers  deigned  to  give  their  attention  to 
them;  or  that,  at  the  period  of  time  you  allude  to,  the  laws  of 
nature  were  “  perpetually”  suspended,  for  the  benefit  of  the  church. 
It  may  be,  that  not  one  of  the  few  heathen  writers,  whose  books 
have  escaped  the  ravages  of  time,  w  as  ever  present  when  a  miracle 
was  wrought;  but  will  it  follow,  because  Pliny,  or  Plutarch,  or 
Galen,  or  Seneca,  or  Suetonius,  or  Tacitus,  had  never  seen  a  mira¬ 
cle,  that  no  miracles  were  ever  performed?  They,  indeed,  were 
learned  and  observant  men ;  and  it  may  be  a  matter  of  surprise  to 
us,  that  miracles  so  celebrated,  as  the  friends  of  Christianity  sup¬ 
pose  the  Christian  ones  to  have  been,  should  never  have  been  men¬ 
tioned  by  them,  though  they  had  not  seen  them ;  and  had  an  Adrian 
or  a  Vespasian  been  the  authors  of  but  a  thousandth  part  of  the 
miracles  you  have  ascribed  to  the  primitive  church,  more  than  one, 
probably,  of  these  very  historians,  philosophers  as  they  were,  would 
have  adorned  his  history  with  the  narration  of  them :  for  though 
they  turned  aside  from  the  awful  spectacle  of  the  miracles  of  a  poor 
despised  apostle ;  yet  they  beheld  with  exulting  complacency,  and 
have  related  with  unsuspecting  credulity,  the  ostentatious  tricks  of 
a  Roman  emperor.  It  was  not  for  want  of  feith  in  miraculous 
events,  that  these  sages  neglected  the  Christian  miracles,  but  for 
want  of  candor  and  impartial  examination. 

I  answer,  in  the  second  place,  that  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we 
have  an  account  of  a  great  multitude  of  Pagans  of  everj'  condition 
of  life,  who  v^ere  so  far  from  being  inattentive  to  the  evidences 
which  were  presented  by  the  hand  of  Omnipotence  to  their  senses, 
that  they  contemplated  them  with  reverence  and  wonder  ;  and,  for¬ 
saking  the  religion  of  their  ancestors,  and  all  the  flattering  hopes  of 
W'orldly  profit,  reputation,  and  tranquillity,  adhered  with  astonishing 
resolution  to  the  profession  of  Christianity.  From  the  conclusion  of 
the  Acts,  till  the  time  in  w  hich  some  of  the  sages  you  mention  flour¬ 
ished,  is  a  very  obscure  part  of  church  history ;  yet  we  are  certain, 
that  )nany  of  the  Pagan,  and  W’e  have  some  reason  to  believe,  that 


76 


Watsori^s  Apology 


not  a  few  of  the  philosophic  world,  during  that  period,  did  not  turn 

spectacle  of  miracles,  but  saw  and  believed  ; 
and  that  a  few  others  should  be  found,  who  probably  had  never 
seen,  and  therefore  would  not  believe,  is  surely  no  very  extraor- 

should  we  not  answer  to  objections, 
such  as  these  the  bolJness  of  St.  Jerome;  and  bid  Celsus,  and 
Forphyiy,  and  Julian,  and  their  followers,  learn  the  illustrious  char¬ 
acters  of  the  men  who  founded,  built  up,  and  adorned  the  Chris¬ 
tian  church  ?  Why  should  we  not  tell  them,  with  Arnobius,  of  the 
orators,  the  grammarians,  the  rhetoricians,  the  lawyers,  the  physi¬ 
cians,  the  philosophers,  “  who  appeared  conscious  of  the  alterations 
in  the  moral  and  phypcal  government  of  the  world and,  from  that 
consciousness,  forsook  the  ordinary  occupations  of  life  and  study, 
and  attached  themselves  to  the  Christian  discipline  ?t  ^ 

I  answer  in  the  last  place,  that  the  miracles  of  Christians  were 
1  ilfif  to  magic;  and  were  for  that  reason  thought  un- 

iTh,?  T  referred  to.  Suetonius, 

emails  the  Christians,  men  of  a  new  and  magical 
mSi  I  "T'ble  that  you  laugh  at  those  “sagacious  Som- 
iHa  S?  ’^he  original  word  by  magical ;  and,  adopt¬ 

ing  the  idea  of  Mosheim,  you  think  it  ought  to  be  rendered  mis- 
Permcious :  unquestionably  it  frequently  has  that  meah- 
ing,  with  due  deference,  however,  to  Mosheim  and  yourself,  I  can- 
not  help  being  of  opinion,  that  in  this  place,  as  descriptive  of  the 
Christian  religion,  it  is  rightly  translated  magical.  The  Theodosian 

.^or  disscnting  from  such  respectable 
authority ,  and  in  it,  I  conjecture,  you  wall  find  good  reason  for 
®P“^ion.§  Nor  ought  any  friend  to  Christianity  to  be 
Suetonius  applying  the  word  magical  to  the 
Christian  religion ;  for  the  miracles  wrought  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles  principally  consisted  in  alleviating  the  distresses,  by  curing 
the  obstinate  diseases  of  human  kind ;  and  the  proper  meLing  of 

branS,  ^  higher  and  more  Lly 

branch  of  the  art  of  healing.||  The  elder  Pliny  lost  his  life  in  ah 

Celsus,  Porphyrius,  Julianus,  rabidi  adversus  Cliristiim  canes 
discant  eorum  sectatores,  qiii  putant  Ecclesiam  nullos  Philosoptios  et 
"«hos  habuisse  Doctores;  quanti  et  quales  viri  earn  fuuda 
tantum  slninUrUnr  *^™®'^erintque ;  et  desinant  fidem  nostram  rusticte 

i“P'=n*«'n  agnosen,,,.- 

t  Arnob.  con,  Gen.  lib.  xi. 

I  nha  puperstitionis  novie  et  maleJiccB.  Suet,  in  Nero.  c.  xvi 

nitudinem  wa^ejices  ob  facinorum  mag- 

nni  1  n'Jis  wagMs  vel  magicis  containinibus  adsuetu^ 

qui  maleficus  vulgi  consuetudine  nuncupatur.  ix.  Cod.  Theodos.  tit  xvi. 

II  Pony,  speaking  of  the  origin  of  magic,  says,  Natam  primum  e  medi- 

salutari  irrepsisse  velut  alliorem  savetio- 
T^mque  medictnavt.  He  afterwards  says,  that  it  was  mixed  with  mathe 
maucai  arts;  and  thus  magi  and  mathematici  are  joined  by  Plinv  as 
malefict  and  magtet  are  in  the  Theodosian  Code.  Plin.  Nat  Histf’lib. 

G*  !•  * 


77 


for  Christianity. 

eruption  of  Vesuvius,  about  forty-seven  years  after  the  death  of 
Christ :  some  fifteen  years  before  the  death  of  Pliny,  the  Christians 
were  pereecuted  at  Rome  for  a  crime,  of  which  every  person  knew 
them  imiocent ;  but  from  the  description,  which  Tacitus  gives,  of 
the  low'  estimation  they  were  held  in  at  that  time  (for  which,  how¬ 
ever,  he  assigns  no  cause;  and  therefore  we  may  reasonably  con¬ 
jecture  it  was  the  same  for  which  the  Jews  were  everywhere  be¬ 
come  so  odious,  an  opposition  to  polytheism),  and  of  the  extreme 
sufferings  they  underwent,  w'e  cannot  be  much  surprised,  that  their 
name  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  works  of  Pliny  or  of  Seneca :  the 
sect  itself  must,  by  Nero’s  persecution,  have  been  almost  destroyed 
in  Rome ;  and  it  would  have  been  uncourtly,  not  to  say  unsafe,  to 
have  noticed  an  order  of  men,  whose  innocence  an  emperor  had 
determined  to  traduce,  in  order  to  divert  the  dangerous,  but  de¬ 
served  stream  of  popular  censure  from  himself  Notwithstanding 
this,  there  is  a  passage  in  the  Natural  History  of  Pliny,  which,  how' 
much  soever  it  may  have  been  overlooked,  contains,  I  think,  a  very 
strong  allusion  to  the  Christians ;  and  clearly  intimates,  he  had  heard 
of  their  miracles.  In  speaking  concerning  the  origin  of  magic,  he 
says ;  there  is  also  another  faction  of  magic,  derived  from  the  Jew's, 
Moses,  and  Lotopea,  and  subsisting  at  present.’''  The  word  faction 
does  not  ill  denote  the  opinion  the  Romans  entertained  of  the  reli¬ 
gious  associations  of  the  Christians  ;t  and  a  magical  faction  implies 
their  pretensions,  at  least,  to  the  miraculous  gifts  of  healing ;  and 
its  descending  from  Moses  is  according  to  the  custom  of  the  Ro¬ 
mans,  by  which  they  confounded  the  Christians  with  the  Jew's ; 
and  its  being  then  subsisting,  seems  to  have  a  strong  reference  to 
the  rumors  Pliny  had  negligently  heai’d  reported  of  the  Christians. 

Submitting  each  of  these  answers  to  your  cool  and  candid  con¬ 
sideration,  I  proceed  to  take  notice  of  another  difficulty  in  your 
fifteenth  chapter,  -  which  some  have  thought  one  of  the  most  im¬ 
portant  in  your  whole  book ;  the  silence  of  profane  historians  con¬ 
cerning  the  preternatural  darkness  at  the  crucifixion  of  Christ.  You 
know.  Sir,  that  several  learned  men  are  of  opinion,  that  profane  his¬ 
tory  is  not  silent  upon  this  subject ;  I  will,  however,  put  their  author¬ 
ity  for  the  present  quite  out  of  the  question.  I  will  neither  trouble 
you  with  the  testimony  of  Phlegon,  nor  with  the  appeal  of  Tertul- 
lian  to  the  public  registers  of  the  Romans ;  but  meeting  you  upon 
your  own  ground,  and  granting  you  every  thing  you  desire,  I  will 
endeavor,  from  a  fair  and  candid  examination  of  the  histoiy  of  this 
event,  to  suggest  a  doubt,  at  least,  to  your  mind,  whether  this  was 


*  Est  et  alia  magices  factio,  a  Mose  etiamnum  et  Lotopea  Jiidfeis  pen¬ 
dens.  Plin.  Nat.  Hist.  lib.  xxx.  c.  ii.  Edit.  Hardn.  Dr.  Lardner  and  others 
have  made  slight  mention  of  this  passage,  probably  from  their  reading  in 
bad  editions  Jamne  for  etiamnum,  a  Mose  et  Jamne  et  Jotape  Judceis  pen 
dens. 

t  Tertnllian  reckons  the  sect  of  the  Chrisians,  inter  licitas  factiones. 
Ap.  c.  xxxviii. 

G2 


78 


Watson's  Apology 

“  the  greatest  phenomenon,  to  which  the  mortal  eye  has  been  wit¬ 
ness,  since  the  creation  of  the  globe.” 

This  darkness  is  mentioned  by  three  of  the  four  evangelists ;  St. 
Matthew  thus  expresses  himself:  “Now  from  the  sixth  hour  there 
was  darkness  over  all  the  land  until  the  ninth  hour St.  Mark 
says :  “And  when  the  sixth  hour  was  come,  there  was  darkness  over 
the  vyhole  land  until  the  ninth  hour;”  St.  Luke  :  “And  it  wms  about 
the  sixth  hour,  and  there  wms  darkness  over  all  the  earth  until  the 
ninth  hour ;  and  the  sun  wms  darkened.”  The  three  evangelists 
agree,  that  there  was  darkness ;  and  they  agree  in  the  extent  of  the 
darkness:  for  it  is  the' same  expression  'in  the  original,  which  our 
translators  have  rendered  earth  in  Luke,  and  land  in  the  two  other 
accounts ;  and  they  agree  in  the  duration  of  the  darkness,  it  lasted 
three  hours.  Luke  adds  a  particular  circumstance,  “  that  the  sun 
was  darkened.”  I  do  not  know  whether  this  event  be  anywhere 
else  mentioned  in  Scripture,  so  that  our  inquiry  can  neither  be  ex¬ 
tensive  nor  difficult. 

In  philosophical  propriety  of  speech,  darkness  consists  in  the  total 
absence  of  light,  and  admits  of  no  degrees ;  how-ever,  in  the  more 
common  acceptation  of  the  word,  there  are  degrees  of  darkness,  as 
well  as  of  light ;  and  as  the  evangelists  have  said  nothing,  by  which 
the  particular  degree  of  darkness  can  be  determined,  we  have  as 
much  reason  to  suppose  it  was  slight,  as  you  have  that  it  wms  exces¬ 
sive  ;  but  if  it  was  slight,  though  it  had  extended  itself  over  the 
surface  of  the  whole  globe,  the  difficulty  of  its  not  being  recorded 
by  Pliny  or  Seneca  vanishes  at  once.*  Do  you  not  perceive.  Sir,  ' 
upon  wffiat  a  slender  foundation  this  mighty  objection  is  grounded  ; 
when  w^e  have  only  to  put  you  upon  proving,  that  the  darkness  at 
the  crucifixion  'was  of  so  unusual  a  nature,  as  to  have  excited  the 
particular  attention  of  all  mankind,  or  even  of  those  who  wmre  wit¬ 
nesses  to  it  ?  But  I  do  not  mean  to  deal  so  logically  with  you  ;  rather 
give  me  leave  to  spare  you  the  trouble  of  your  proof  by  proving,  or 
showing  the  probability  at  least,  of  the  direct  contrary.  There  is  a 
circumstance  mentioned  by  St.  John,  which  seems  to  indicate,  that 
the  darkness  was  not  so  excessive  as  is  generally  supposed ;  for  it  is 
probable,  that,  during  the  continuance  of  the  darkness,  Jesus  spoke 
l»th  to  his  mother,  and  to  his  beloved  disciple,  whom  he  saw  from 
the  cross ;  they  were  near  the  cross  ;  but  the  soldiers  wffiich  sur¬ 
rounded  It  must  have  kept  them  at  too  great  a  distance  for  Jesus  to 
have  seen  them  and  kno-ivn  them,  had  the  darkness  at  the  crucifix¬ 
ion  been  excessive,  like  the  preternatural  darkness  rvhich  God 
brought  upon  the  land  of  Egypt ;  for  it  is  expressly  said,  that,  during 

*  The  author  of  L’Ev^angile  cle  la  Raison  is  mistaken  in  saving  that 
Uie  evangelists  speak  of  a  thick  darkness  ;  and  that  mistake  has  led  him 
into  another,  into  a  disbelief  of  the  event,  because  it  has  not  been  men¬ 
tioned  by  the  writers  of  the  times:  Ces  historiens  (the  Evangelists)  out  le 
iront  de  nous  dire,  qu’a  sa  mort  la  terre  a  ete  couverte  d’6paisses  tene- 
bres  en  plein  midi  et  en  pleine  lune  ;  comme  si  tons  les  ecrivains  de  ce 
tems-la  n’auroiont  pas  remarquoun  si  dtrange  miracle!  L’Evan.  de  la 


79 


for  Cliristianily. 

the  continuance  of  that  darkness,  “  they  saw  not  one  another.”  The 
expression  in  St.  Lnke,  “  the  sun  was  darkened,”  tends  rather  to 
confirm  than  to  overthrow  this  reasoning.  I  am  sensible  this  ex¬ 
pression  is  generally  thought  equivalent  to  another ;  the  sun  was 
eclipsed ;  but  the  Bible  is  open  to  us  all ;  and  there  can  be  no  pre¬ 
sumption  in  endeavoring  to  investigate  the  meaning  of  Scripture 
for  ourselves.  Luckily  for  the  present  argumentation,  the  very 
phrase  of  the  sun’s  being  darkened,  occurs,  in  so  mkny  words,  in 
one  other  place  (and  in  only  one)  of  the  New  Testament;  and  from 
that  place  you  may  possibly  see  reason  to  imagine,  that  the  darkness 
iviight  not,  perhaps,  have  been  so  intense  as  to  deserve  the  particu¬ 
lar  notice  of  the  Roman  naturalists :  “  And  he  opened  the  bottom¬ 
less  pit,  and  there  arose  a  smoke  out  of  the  pit,  as  the  smoke  of  a 
great  furnace ;  and  the  sun  w’^as  darkened,*  and  the  air,  by  reason 
of  the  smoke  of  the  pit.”  If  we  should  say,  that  the  sun  at  the  cru¬ 
cifixion  was  obnubilated,  and  darkened  by  the  intervention  of 
clouds,  as  it  is  here  represented  to  be  by  the  intervention  of  a 
smoke  like  the  smoke  of  a  furnace,  I  do  not  see  what  you  could  ob¬ 
ject  to  our  account ;  but  such  a  phenomenon  has  surely  no  right  to 
be  esteemed  the  greatest  that  mortal  eye  has  ever  beheld.  I  may 
be  mistaken  in  this  interpretation ;  but  I  have  no  design  to  misrepre¬ 
sent  the  fact,  in  order  to  get  rid  of  a  difficulty ;  the  darkness  may 
have  been  as  intense  as  many  commentators  have  supposed  it :  but 
neither  they  nor  you  can  prove  it  was  so ;  and  I  am  surely  under 
no  necessity,  upon  this  occasion,  of  granting  you,  out  of  deference 
to  any  commentator,  what  you  can  neither  prove  nor  render  prob¬ 
able. 

But  you  still,  perhaps,  may  think,  that  the  darkness,  by  its  extent, 
made  up  for  this  deficiency  in  point  of  intenseness.  The  original 
word,  expressive  of  its  extent,  is  sometimes  interpreted  by  the  whole 
earth ;  more  frequently,  in  the  New  Testament,  of  any  little  por¬ 
tion  of  the  earth :  for  we  read  of  the  land  of  Judah,  of  the  land  of 
Israel,  of  the  land  of  Zabulon,  and  of  the  land  of  Nephthalim ;  and 
it  may  very  properly,  I  conceive,  be  translated  in  the  place  in  ques¬ 
tion  by  region.  But  why  should  all  the  world  take  notice  of  a  dark¬ 
ness  which  extended  itself  for  a  few  miles  about  Jerusalem,  and 
lasted  but  three  hours  ?  The  Italians,  especially,  had  no  reason  to 
remark  the  event  as  singular ;  since  they  were  accustomed  at  that 
time,  as  they  are  at  present,  to  see  the  neighboring  regions  so  dark¬ 
ened  for  days  together  by  the  eruptions  of  .^tna  and  Vesuvius,  that 
no  man  could  know  his  neighbor.!  We  learn  from  the  Scripture 
account,  that  an  earthquake  accompanied  this  darkness ;  and  a  dark 
clouded  sk}^,  I  apprehend,  very  frequently  precedes  an  earthquake  ; 


*  -  Kai  tGKOTiaOr)  b  rjXiOi.  Attok.  IX.  2. 

t - nos  autem  tenebras  cogiteinus  tantas,  quantos  quondam 

eriiptione  EtnEoruiu  ignium  jinitimas  regiones  obscuravisse  dicuntnr,  ul 
per  bidunin  nemo  hominem  homo  agnosceret.  Cic.  de  Nat.  Deo.  lib.  ii. 
And  Pliny,  in  describing  the  eruption  of  Vesuvius,  which  suffocated  his 
uncle,  says  :  Dies  alibi,  illic  nox  omnibus  noctibus  nigrior  densiorquo. 


80 


WatsorCs  Apology 

but  its  extent  is  not  great,  nor  is  its  intenseness  excessive,  nor  is  the 
phenomenon  itself  so  imusual,  as  not  commonly  to  pass  unnoticed 
in  ages  of  science  and  history.  I  fear  I  may  be  liable  to  misrepre- 
senfetion  in  this  place ;  but  I  beg  it  may  be  observed,  that  however 
slight  in  degree,  or  however  confined  in  extent  the  darkness  at  the 
crucifixion  may  have  been ;  I  am  of  opinion,  that  the  power  of  God 
was  as  supematurally  exerted  in  its  production  and  in  that  of  the 
earthquake  which  accompanied  it,  as  in  the  opening  of  the  graves, 
and  the  resurrection  of  the  saints,  which  followed  the  resurrection 
of  Christ. 

In  another  place,  you  seem  not  to  believe  “that  Pontius  Pilate 
informed  the  emperor  of  the  unjust  sentence  of  death,  which  he 
liM  pronounced  against  an  innocent  person.”  And  the  same  reason 
which  made  him  silent  as  to  the  death,  ought,  one  Avould  suppose, 
to  have  made  him  silent  as  to  the  miraculous  events  which  accom- 
pi^ed  it;  and  if  Pilate,  in  his  dispatches  to  the  emperor,  transmit¬ 
ted  no  account  of  the  darkness  (how  great  soever  you  suppose  it  to 
have  been)  which  happened  in  a  distant  province  ;  I  cannot  appre¬ 
hend,  that  the  report  of  it  could  have  ever  gained  such  credit  at 
Rome  as  to  induce  either  Pliny  or  Seneca  to  mention  it  as  an  au¬ 
thentic  fact.  I  am,  &c. 


LETTER  VI. 

Sir  I  mean  not  to  detain  you  long  with  my  remarks  upon  your 
sixteenth  chapter;  for  in  a  short  Apology  for  Christianity,  it  cannot 
be  expected  mat  I  should  apologize  at  length  for  the  indiscretions 
or  the  first  Christians.  Nor  have  I  any  disposition  to  reap  a  mali¬ 
cious  pleasure  from  exaggerating,  which  you  have  had  so  much 
good-natured  pleasure  in  extenuating,  the  truculent  barbarity  of 
their  Roman  persecutors. 

M.  de  Voltaire  has  embraced  every  opportunity  of  contrasting  the 
persecuting  temper  of  the  Christians  with  the  mild  tolerance  of  the 
ancient  heathens;  and  I  never  read  a  page  of  his  upon  this  subject 
without  thinlang  Christianity  materially,  if  not  intentionally,  obliged  | 
to  him,  lor  his  endeavor  to  depress  the  lofty  spirit  of  religious 
bigotry.  I  may  with  justice  pay  the  same  compliment  to  you ;  and 
1  do  it  with  sincerity ;  heartily  wishing,  that,  in  the  prosecution  of 
your  work,  ymi  may  render  every  species  of  intolerance  universally 
detestable.  There  is  no  reason  why  you  should  abate  the  asperity 
ot  yoim  invective ;  since  no  one  can  suspect  you  of  a  design  to  tra¬ 
duce  Christianity  under  the  guise  of  a  zeal  against  persecution ;  or 
n  any  one  should  be  so  simple,  he  need  but  open  the  Gospel  to 
be  convinced,  that  such  a  scheme  is  too  palpably  absurd  to  have 
ever  entered  the  head  of  any  sensible  and  impartial  man. 

1  wish,  for  the  credit  of  human  nature,  that  I  could  find  reason  to 


81 


for  Christianity. 

agree  with  you  in  what  you  have  said  of  the  “  universal  toleration 
of  Polytheism;  of  the  mild  indifference  of  antiquity;  of  the  Roman 
princes  beholding,  without  concern,  a  thousand  forms  of  religion 
subsisting  in  peace  under  their  gentle  sway.”  But  there  are  some 
passages  in  the  Roman  History  which  make  me  hesitate  at  least  in 
this  point,  and  almost  induce  me  to  believe,  that  the  Romans  were 
exceedingly  jealous  of  all  foreign  religions,  whether  they  were  ac¬ 
companied  wdth  immoral  manners  or  not. 

It  was  the  Roman  custom,  indeed,  to  invite  the  tutelary  gods  of 
the  nations,  which  they  intended  to  subdue,  to  abandon  their  charge, 
and  to  promise  them  the  same,  or  even  a  more  august  w'orship,  in 
the  city  of  Rome  ;* * * §  and  their  triumphs  were  graced  as  much  with 
the  exhibition  of  their  captive  gods,  as  with  the  less  humane  one  of 
their  captive  kings.t  But  this  custom,  though  it  filled  the  city  with 
hundreds  of  gods  of  every  country,  denomination,  and  quality,  can¬ 
not  be  brought  as  a  proof  of  Roman  toleration ;  it  may  indicate  the 
excess  of  their  vanity,  the  extent  of  their  superstition,  or  the  refine¬ 
ment  of  their  policy ;  but  it  can  never  show,  that  the  religion  of 
individuals,  when  it  differed  from  public  wisdom,  w^as  either  con¬ 
nived  at  as  a  matter  of  indifference,  or  tolerated  as  an  inalienable 
rig]  it  of  human  nature.  . 

Upon  another  occasion,  you.  Sir,  have  refeped  to  Livy  as  relat¬ 
ing  the  introduction  and  suppression  of  the  rites  of  Bacchus  ;  and 
in'that  very  place  w^e  find  him  confessing,  that  the  prohibiting  all 
foreign  religions,  and  abolishing  every  mode  of  sacrifice  w'hich  dif¬ 
fered  from  the  Roman  mode,  was  a  business  frequently  intrusted 
bv  their  ancestors  to  the  care  of  the  proper  magistrates ;  and  he 
gives  this  reason,  for  the  procedure :  that  nothing  could  contribute 
more  effectually  to  the  ruin  of  religion,  than  the  sacrificing  after  an 
external  rite,  and  not  after  the  manner  instituted  by  their  fathers.^ 

Not  thirty  years  before  this  event,  the  Praetor,  in  conformity  to  a 
decree  of  the  senate,  had  issued  an  edict,  that  no  one  should  pre¬ 
sume  to  sacrifice  in  any  public  place  after  a  new  or  foreign  manner.^ 


*  In  oppugnationibus,  ante  omnia  solitum  a  Romanis  sacerdotibus 
evocari  deum  cujus  in  tutela  id  oppidum  esset ;  promittique  illi  eundem, 
aut  ampliorem  apud  Romanos  cultum.  Plin.  Nat.  Hist.  lib.  xxxviii. 
c.  iv. 

f  Roma  triumphantis  quotiens  Ducis  inclita  currura 
Piausibusexceptit,  totiens  altaria  Divum 
Addidit  spoliis  sibimet  nova  numina  fecit. — Pruden. 

J  Ciuoties  hoc  patrum  avorumque  setate  negotium  est  magistratibus 
datum,  ut  sacra  externa  fieri  vetarent?  sacrificulos  vatesque  foro,  circo, 
urbe  prohiberent?  vaticinos  libros  conquirercnt  comburerentque?  omnem 
disciplinam  sacrificandi,  priEterquam  more  Romano,  abqlerent?  Judica- 
bant  enim  prudentissimi  viri  oinnis  divini  humanique  juris,  nihil  seque 
dissolvendiB  religionis  esse,  quam  ubi  non  patrio,  sed  externo  ritu  sacri- 
ficaretur.  Liv.  lib.  xxxix.  c.  xvi.  .-a  a- 

§  Ut  quicumque  librot  vaticinos  precationesve,  aut  artem  saciiticandi 
conscriptam  haberet,  eos  libros  omnes  litterasque  ad  se  ante  Kalendas 
Apriles  deferret ;  neu  quis  in  publico  sacrove  loco,  novo  aut  externo  ritu 
Bacrificaret.  Liv.  lib.  xxv.  c.  i. 


82 


MVatsoii’s  Apology 


And  in  a  still  more  early  period,  the  asdiles  had  been  commanded 
to  take  care  toat  no  gods  were  w’orshipped  except  the  Roman  gods : 
and  that  the  Roman  gods  were  worshipped  after  no  manner  but  the 
established  manner  of  the  country.-'' 

But  to  come  nearer  to  the  times  of  which  you  are  writing.  In 
Dion  Cassius  you  may  meet  with  a  great  courtier,  one  of  the  interior 
cabinet,  and  a  polished  statesmp,  in  a  set  speech  upon  the  most 
momernous  subject,  expressing  himself  to  the  emperor  in  a  manner 
agreeable  enough  to  the  practice  of  antiquity,  but  utterly  incon- 
remote  idea  of  religious  toleration.  The  speech 
alluded  to,  contains,  I  confess  it,  nothing  more  than  the  advice  of 
an  individual ;  but  it  ought  to  be  remembered,  that  that  individual 
was  Majcenas,  that  the  advice  was  given  to  Augustus,  and  that  the 
occasion  of  giving  it  was  no  less  important  than  the  settling  the 
lorm  ol  the  Roman  government.  He  recommends  it  to  Ciesar  to 
vvorship  the  gods  himself  according  to  the  established  form,  and  to 
force  all  others  to  do  the  same,  and  to  hate  and  to  punisk  all  those 
who  should  attempt  to  introduce  foreign  religions  :t  nay,  he  bids 

an  eye  upon  the  philosophers  also  : 
so  that  free  thinlving,  free  speaking  at  least,  upon  religious  matters, 
was  not  quite  so  safe  under  the  gentle  sway  of  the  Roman  princes, 
as,  thank  God,  it  is  under  the  much  more  gentle  government  of  our 

In  the  Edict  of  Toleration  published  by  Galerius  after  six  years’ 
unremitted  persecution  of  the  Christians,  we  perceive  his  motive 
tor  persecution  to  have  been  the  same  with  that  which  had  influ¬ 
enced  the  conduct  of  the  more  ancient  Romans,  an  abhorrence  of 
all  mnovahons  m  religion.  You  have  favored  us  with  the  transla- 
tion  ol  this  edict,  in  which  he  says,  “  we  were  particularly  desirous 
of  reclaiming  into  the  way  of  reason  and  nature,”  ad.  honas  menies 
(a  good  pretence  this  for  a  polytheistic  persecutor)  “the  deluded 
renounced  the  religion  and  ceremonies  insti¬ 
tuted  by  their  fathers;”  this  is  the  precise  language  of  Livy  de¬ 
scribing  a  persecution  of  a  foreign  religion  three  hundred  years  be- 
tore,  turba  erat  nec  sacrificantium  nec  precan tium  deos  patrio 
more.  And  the  very  expedient  of  forcing  the  Christians  to  deliver 
^  which  was  practised  in  this  persecution 

and  which  Mosheim  attributes  to  the  advice  of  Hierocles,  and  you 
to  that  of  the  philosophers  of  those  times,  seems  clear  to  me 
from  the  places  m  Livy  before  quoted,  to  have  been  nothing  but 
an  old  piece  of  state  policy,  to  which  the  Romans  had  recourse  as 
dange?  apprehended  their  established  religion  to  be  in  any 

^^In^e  preamble  of  the  letter  of  toleration,  which  the  emperor 

*  Datum  inde  negotium  aidilibus,  nt  animadverterent,  ne  qui  ni^i 
Komam  dn,  neu  quo  alio  more  quam  patrio,  colerentur,  Liv.  1.  iv.  c.’xxx. 

t  Taara  re  arw  irparre,  Kai  Trpoaeri  ro  psv  Oeiov  TTavrt]  navrois  avros 
re  crejjy,  Kara  ra  rarpia,  Kai  raf  aXXaj  ripav  avayKa^e’  raf  hvdov 
ras  Ti  nepi  avro  Kai  niaei  Kai  Ko'Xa^e.  Dion.  Cas.  lib.  lii. 


83 


for  Christianity, 

Maxirain  reluctantly  wrote  to  Sabinus  about  a  year  after  the  pub¬ 
lication  of  Galerius’s  Edict,  there  is  a  plain  avowal  of  the  reasons 
which  induced  Galerius  and  Diocletian  to  commence  their  perse¬ 
cution  ;  they  had  seen  the  temples  of  the  gods  forsaken,  and  were 
determined  by  the  severity  of  punishment  to  reclaim  men  to  their 
worship.* 

In  short,  the  system  recommended  by  Mascenas,  of  forcing  every 
person  to  be  of  the  emperor’s  religion,  and  of  hating  and  punishing 
every  innovator,  contained  no  new  doctrine ;  it  was  correspondent 
to  the  practice  of  the  Roman  senate,  in  the  most  illustrious  times 
of  the  republic,  and  seems  to  have  been  generally  adopted  by  the 
emperors  in  their  treatment  of  Christians,  whilst  they  themselves 
were  Pagans ;  and  in  their  treatment  of  Pagans,  after  they  them¬ 
selves  became  Christians  ;  and  if  any  one  should  be  willing  to  de¬ 
rive  those  laws  against  heretics  (which  are  so  abhorrent  from  the 
mild  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  and  so  reproachful  to  the  Roman  code) 
from  the  blind  adherence  of  the  Christian  emperors  to  the  intoler¬ 
ant  policy  of  their  Pagan  predecessors,  something,  I  think,  might  be 
produced  in  support  of  liis  conjecture. 

But  I  am  sorry  to  have  said  so  much  upon  such  a  subject.  In  en¬ 
deavoring  to  palliate  the  severity  of  the  Romans  towards  the  Chris¬ 
tians,  you  have  remarked,-'*  it  was  in  vain  that  the  oppressed  be¬ 
liever  asserted  the  inalienable  rights  of  conscience  and  private 
judgment.”  “  Though  his  situation  might  excite  the  pity,  his  argu¬ 
ments  could  never  reach  the  understanding,  either  of  the  philoso¬ 
phic,  or  of  the  believing  part  of  the  Pagan  world.”  How  is  this, 
Sir  ?  are  the  arguments  for  liberty  of  conscience  so  exceedingly  in¬ 
conclusive,  that  you  think  them  incapable  of  reaching  the  under¬ 
standing,  even  of  philosophers?  A  captious  adversary  would  em¬ 
brace  with  avidity  the  opportunity  this  passage  affords  him,  of 
blotting  your  character  with  the  odious  stain  of  being  a  pei-secutor ; 
a  stain  which  no  learning  can  wipe  out,  which  no  genius  or  ability 
can  render  amiable.  I  am  far  from  entertaining  such  an  opinion  of 
your  principles;  but  this  conclusion  seems  fairly  deducible  from 
what  you  have  said,  that  the  minds  of  the  Pagans  were  so  pre-oc- 
cupied  with  the  notions  of  forcing,  and  hating,  and  punishing  those 
who  differed  from  them  in  religion,  that  arguments  for  the  inalien¬ 
able  rights  of  conscience,  which  would  have  convinced  yourself 
and  every  philosopher  in  Europe,  and  staggered  the  resolution  of 
an  inquisitor,  were  incapable  of  reaching  their  luideretandings,  or 
making  any  impression  on  their  hearts;  and  you  mighf  perhaps, 
have  spared  yourself  some  perplexity  in  the  investigation  of  the 
motives  which  induced  the  Roman  emperors  to  persecute,  and  the 
Roman  people  to  hate  the  Christians,  if  you  had  not  overlooked  the 


t  'EvveiSov  ax.^Sov  airavrag  av0pa)7raf,  Kara\£i(pQti<yng  rtjg  rwv  Oeoyv 
dpricrKtiag,  rw  tOvsi  rwv  'Xpig'iavu)v  eavTsg  cvim£ixi')(OTag.  OpBoig  SiaT£- 
Ta^£vai  iravrag  avOpwirug  rae  ano  twv  d£(j)v  rwv  aQavarwv  ava'^wpriaav- 
rag,  Trpo  6rj'\u)  KoXacr£i  Kai  Tijnoipia  £ig  rrjv  6pr]crK£iav  tmv  0£WV  avaK\rjQr]- 
mi,  Euseb.  lib.  ix.  c.  iv. 


84 


Watson’s  Apology 

trae  one,  and  adopted  with  too  great  facility  the  erroneous  idea  of 
the  extreme  tolerance  of  Pagan  Rome. 

The  Christians,  you  observe,  were  accused  of  atheism  •  and  it 
must  be  owned  that  they  were  the  greatest  of  all  atheists’  in  the 

instead  of  Hesiod’s  thirty  thousand 
g  ds,  they  could  not  be  brought  to  acknowledge  above  one  •  and 

Mhth  the  refused,  at  the  hazard  of  their  lives,  to  blaspheme 

with  the  appellation  of  Jupiter.  But  is  it  not  somewhat  singular 

superio'r  ^eingsTn  the'  IrWnf 

forming  dangerous  conspiracies 
gainst  the  state .  this  accusation,  you  own,  was  as  uniust  as  the 

» pecaiJCshipt 

of  the  Christians,  since  the  very  same  men  who 
thought  them  danprous  to  the  state,  on  account  of  their  coAspira- 
cies,  condemned  them,  as  you  have  observed,  for  not  interfering  in 
Its  concerns;  for  their  criminal  disregard  to  the  business  of  war 
and  government,  a.nd  for  their  entertaining  doctrines,  which  were 
supposed  to  prohibit  them  from  assuming  the  character  of  soldiers 

princes:”  men,  such  as  these,  would  have 
made  but  poor  conspirators. 

They  \yere  accused,  lastly,  of  the  most  horrid  crimes.  This  ac¬ 
cusation,  It  IS  confessed,  was  mere  calumny;  yet  Tcalumny  is 
generally  more  extensive  in  its  influence  than  truth,  perhaps  this 
calumny  might  be  more  powerful  in  stopping  the  progrLs  of  Chris 

observes,  that  the  Christians,  on  account  of 
the  crim^  which  were  maliciously  laid  to  their  charge,  were  held 
m  such  abhorrence  that  no  one  would  so  much  as  s%ak  ^^0111 

vel^^K  from  him,  that  the  Jews,  in  the 

nie?  wfierr^f^  Chnstiamty,  were  the  authors  of  aU  those  calum- 
nies,  which  Celsus  afterwards  took  such  great  deliaht  in  ure-imr 

St  precisSn^ mentionfd  with  such 

whin  improbable  supposition,  that  the  clandestine  manner  in 
SrisH  spirit  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  oblM  the 

S^Sn^the^'S'’''  eucharist,  together  with  the  expfessions 

nseTfr.  and  drinking  the  blood  of  Christ,  which  were 

used  in  its  mstitution,  and  the  custom  of  imparting  a  kiss  of  charity 


cum  eis  habere  velint.— Orig.  con  Cels.  lib.  vi’.  *  simplex  colloquium 


for  Christianity.  85 

to  each  other,  and  of  calling  each  other  Dj  the  appellations  of 
brother  and  sister,*  gave  occasions  to  their  enemies  to  invent,  and 
induced  careless  observers  to  believe,  all  the  odious  things  which 
were  said  against  the  Christians. 

You  have  displayed  at  length,  in  expressive  diction,  the  accusa¬ 
tions  of  the  enemies  of  Christianity ;  and  you  have  told  us  of  the 
imprudent  defence  by  which  the  Christians  vindicated  the  purity 
of  their  morals ;  and  you  have  huddled  up  in  a  short  note  (which 
many  a  reader  will  never  see)  the  testimony  of  Pliny  to  their  inno¬ 
cence.  Pei-mit  me  to  do  the  Christians  a  little  justice,  by  producing 
in  their  cause  the  whole  truth. 

Between  seventy  and  eighty  years  after  the  death  of  Christ, 
Pliny  had  occasion  to  consult  the  emperor  Trajan  concerning  the 
manner  in  which  he  should  treat  the  Christians ;  it  seems  as  if 
there  had  been  judicial  proceedings  against  them,  though  Pliny  had 
never  happened  to  attend  any  of  them.  He  knew,  indeed,  that 
men  were  to  be  punished  for  being  Christians,  or  he  would  not,  as 
a  sensible  magistrate,  have  received  the  accusations  of  legal,  much 
less  of  illegal,  anonymous  informers  against  them ;  nor  would  he, 
before  he  wrote  to  the  emperor,  have  put  to  death  those  whom  his 
threats  could  not  hinder  from  persevering  in  their  confession,  that 
they  were  Christians.  His  harsh  manner  of  proceeding  “in  an 
office  the  most  repugnant  to  his  humanity,”  had  made  many  apos¬ 
tatize  from  their  profession :  persons  of  this  complexion  were  well 
fitted  to  inform  him  of  every  thing  they  knew  concerning  the 
Christians ;  accordingly  he  examined  them ;  but  not  one  of  them 
accused  the  Christians  of  any  other  crime  than  of  praying  to  Christ, 
as  to  some  God,  and  of  binding  themselv'es  by  an  oath,  not  to  be 
guilty  of  any  wickedness.  Not  contented  with  this  information,  he 
put  two  maid  servants,  which  were  called  ministers,  to  the  torture 
but  even  the  rack  could  not  extort  from  the  imbecility  of  the  sex  a 
confession  of  any  crime,  any  account  different  from  that  which  the 
apostates  ha  1  voluntarily  given ;  not  a  word  do  we  find  of  their 
feasting  upon  murdered  infants,  or  of  their  mixing  in  incestuous 
commerce.  After  all  his  pains,  Pliny  pronounced  the  meal  of  the 
Christians  to  be  promiscuous  and  innocent :  persons  of  both  sexes 
of  all  ages,  and  of  every  coridition,  assembled  promiscuously  to¬ 
gether  :  there  was  nothing  for  chastity  to  blush  at,  or  for  humanity 
to  shudder  at,  in  these  meetings ;  there  was  no  secret  initiation  of 
proselytes  by  abhorred  rites ;  but  they  eat  a  promiscuous  meal  in 
Christian  charity,  and  wdth  the  most  perfect  innocence.t 


*  The  Romans  used  these  expressions  in  so  impure  a  sense,  that  Mar- 
tial  calls  them  Nomina  nequiora. — Lib.  ii.  epig.  iv. 

t — alRrmabant  autem,  hanc  fuisse  summara  vel  culpae  suse,  vel  er 
roris,  quod  essent  soliti  stato  die  ante  lucem  convenire ;  carmenque 
Christo,  quasi  Deo,  dicere  secum  invicem:  seque  sacramento  non  in  see- 
lus  aliquod  obstringere,  sed  ne  furta,  ne  latrocinia,  ne  adulteria  commit- 
terent.  ne  fidam  fallerent,  ne  depositum  appellati  abnegareut :  quibus 
peractis,  morem  sibi  discedendi  fuis.se,  rursusque  coeundi  ad  capiendum 
cibum,  promiscMim  tamen,  et  innojium.  Plin.  Epis.  xcvii.  lib  x. 

H  6 


86 


Watson^s  Apology 

Whatever  faults  then  the  Christians  may  have  been  guilty  of  in 
after  times  ;  though  you  could  produce  to  us  a  thousand  ambitious 
prelates  of  Carthage,  or  sensual  ones  of  Antioch,  and  blot  ten  thou¬ 
sand  pages  with  the  impurities  of  the  Christian  clergy  ;  yet  at  this 
period,  whilst  the  memory  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  was  fresh  in 
their  minds ;  or,  in  the  more  emphatic  language  of  Jerome,  “  whilst 
the  blood  of  our  Lord  was  warm,  and  recent  faith  was  fervent  in 
the  believers we  have  the  greatest  reason  to  conclude,  that  they 
were  eminently  distinguished  for  the  probity  and  the  purity  of  tlieir 
lives.  Had  there  been  but  a  shadow  of  a  crime  in  their  assemblies, 
it  must  have  been  detected  by  the  industrious  search  of  the  intelli¬ 
gent  Pliny ;  and  it  is  a  matter  of  real  surprise,  that  no  one  of  the 
apostates  thought  of  paying  court  to  the  govempr  by  a  false  testi¬ 
mony  ;  especially,  as  the  apostasy  seems  to  have  been  exceeding 
general :  since  the  temples,  which  had  been  almost  deserted,  began 
again  to  be  frequented  ;  and  the  victims,  for  which,  a  little  time  be¬ 
fore,  scarce  a  purchaser  was  to  be  found,  began  again  everywhere 
to  be  bought  up.  This,  Sir,  is  a  valuable  testimony  in  our  favor  ;  it 
is  not  that  of  a  declaiming  apologist,  of  a  deluding  priest,  or  of  a  de¬ 
luded  martyr,  of  an  orthodox  Wshop,  or  of  any  “  of  the  most  pious  of 
men,”  the  Christians ;  but  it  is  that  of  a  Roman  magistrate,  philoso¬ 
pher,  and  lawyer  ;  who  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  wanted  inclina¬ 
tion  to  detect  the  immoralities  or  the  conspiracies  of  the  Christians; 
since,  in  his  treatment  of  them,  he  had  stretched  the  authority  of 
his  office,  and  violated  alike  the  laws  of  his  country  and  of  hu¬ 
manity. 

With  this  testimony  I  will  conclude  my  remarks  :  for  I  have  no 
disposition  to  blacken  the  character  you  have  given  of  Nero  ;  or  to 
lessen  the  hurnanity  of  the  Roman  magistrates ;  or  to  magnify  the 
number  of  Christians,  or  of  rnartyrs  ;  or  to  undertake  the  defence  of 
a  few  fanatics,  who  by  their  injudicious  zeal  brought  ruin  upon 
themselves,  and  disgrace  upon  their  profession.  I  may  not  probably 
have  convinced  you  that  you  are  wrong  in  any  thing  which  you 
have  advanced  ;  or  that  the  authors  you  have  quoted  will  not  sup¬ 
port  you  in  the  inferences  you  have  drawn  from  their  works; 
or  that  Christianity  ought  to  be  distinguished  from  its  corrup¬ 
tions  :  yet  I  mav  perhaps  have  had  the  good  fortune  to  lessen,  in 
the  minds  of  others,  some  of  that  dislike  to  the  Christian  religion, 
which  the  perusal  of  your  book  had  unhappily  excited.  I  have 
touched  but  upon  general  topics ;  for  I  should  have  wearied  out 
vour  patience,  to  say  nothing  of  my  readers’,  or  my  own,  had  I  en¬ 
larged  upon  every  thing  in  which  I  dissent  from  you  ;  and  a  minute 
examination  of  your  work  would,  moreover,  have  had  the  appear¬ 
ance  of  a  captious  disposition  to  descend  into  illiberal  personalities ; 
and  might  have  produced  a  certain  acrimony  of  sentiment  or  ex¬ 
pression,  which  may  be  serviceable  in  supplying  the  place  of  argu¬ 
ment,  or  adding  a  zest  to  a  dull  composition;  but  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  investigation  of  truth.  Sorry  shall  I  be,  if  what  I  have 
written  should  give  the  least  interruption  to  the  prosecution  of  the 
great  work  in  which  you  are  engaged :  the  w’orld  is  now  possessed 


87 


for  Christianity. 

of  the  opinion  of  us  both  upon  the  subject  in  question ;  and  it  may, 
perhaps,  be  proper  for  us  both  to  leave  it  in  this  state.  I  say  not 
this  from  any  backwardness  to  acknoA\dedge  rny  mistakes,  when  I 
am  convinced  that  I  am  in  an  error,  but  to  express  the  almost  insu¬ 
perable  reluctance  which  I  feel  to  the  bandying  abusive  argument 
in  public  controversy;  it  is  not,  in  good  truth,  a  difficult  task  to 
chastise  the  froward  petulance  of  those  who  mistake  personal  in¬ 
vective  for  reasoning,  and  clumsy  banter  for  ingenuity ;  but  it  is  a 
dirty  business  at  best,  and  should  never  be  undertaken  by  a  man 
of  any  temper,  except  when  the  interests  of  truth  may  suffer  by 
his  neglect.  Nothing  of  this  nature,  I  am  sensible,  is  to  be  expected 
from  you  ;  and  if  any  thmg  of  the  kind  has  happened  to  escape  my¬ 
self,  I  hereby  disclaim  the  intention  of  saying  it,  and  heartily  wish 
it  unsaid. 

Will  you  permit  me,  Sir,  through  this  channel  (I  may  not,  perhaps, 
have  another  so  good  an  opportunity  of  doing  it),  to  address  a  few 
words,  not  to  yourself,  but  to  a  set  of  men  who  disturb  all  serious 
company  with  their  profane  declamation  against  Christianity ;  and 
who,  haying  picked  up  in  their  travels,  or  the  writings  of  the  Deists, 
a  few  flimsy  objections,  infect  with  their  ignorant  and  irreverent 
ridicule  the  ingenuous  minds  of  the  rising  generation  ? 

Gentlemen, — Suppose  the  mighty  work  accomplished,  the  cross 
trampled  upon,  Christianity  everywhere  proscribed,  and  the  religion 
of  nature  once  more  become  the  religion  of  Europe  ;  what  advan¬ 
tage  will  you  have  derived  to  your  country,  or  to  yourselves,  from 
the  exchange  ?  I  know  your  answer,  you  will  have  freed  the  world 
from  the  hypocrisy  of  priests,  and  the  tyranny  of  superstition.  No ; 
you  forget  that  Lycurgus,  and  Numa,  and  Odin,  and  Mango-Copac, 
and  all  the  great  legislators  of  ancient  and  modern  story,  have  been 
of  opinion,  that  the  affairs  of  civil  society  could  not  well  be  con¬ 
ducted  without  some  religion ;  you  must  of  necessity  introd  uce  a 
priesthood,  with  probably  as  much  hypocrisy ;  a  religion  with  as¬ 
suredly  more  superstition,  than  that  which  you  now  reprobate  with 
such  indecent  and  ill-grounded  contempt.  But  I  will  tell  you  from 
what  you  will  have  freed  the  W'orld  ;  you  will  have  freed  it  from  its 
abhorrence  of  vice,  and  from  every  powerful  incentive  to  virtue ;  you 
will,  with  the  religion,  have  brought  back  the  depraved  morality 
of  Paganism ;  you  will  have  robbed  mankind  of  their  firm  assurance 
of  another  life,  and  thereby  you  will  have  despoiled  them  of  their 
patience,  of  their  humility,  of  their  charity,  of  their  chastity,  of  all 
those  rnild  and  silent  virtues,  which  (however  despicable  they  may 
appear  in  your  eyes)  are  the  only  ones  which  meliorate  and  sublime 
our  nature ;  which  Paganism  never  knew,  which  spring  from  Chris¬ 
tianity  alone,  which  do  or  might  constitute  our  comfort  in  this  life, 
and  w’ithout  the  possession  of  which,  another  life,  if  after  all  their 
should  happen  to  be  one,  must  (unless  a  miracle  be  exerted  in  the 
alteration  of  our  disposition)  be  more  vicious  and  more  miserable 
than  this  is. 

Perhaps  you  will  contend,  that  the  universal  light  of  reason,  that 


88 


Watson's  Apology 

the  truth  und  fitness  of  things,  are  of  themselves  sufficient  to  exalt 
the  nature,  and  regulate  the  manners  of  mankind.  Shall  we  never 
have  done  with  this  groundless  commendation  of  natural  law  ?  Look  j 
into  the  first  chapter  of  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  you  will  i 
see  the  extent  of  its  influence  over  the  Gentiles  of  those  days  ;  or  I 
if  you  dislike  Paul’s  authority,  and  the  manners  of  antiquity,  look  ] 
into  the  more  admired  accounts  of  modern  voyagers ;  and  examine  ' 
its  influence  over  the  Pagans  of  our  own  times,  over  the  sensual  i 
inhabitants  of  Otaheite,  over  the  cannibals  of  New  Zealand,  or  the 
remorseless  savages  of  America.  But  these  men  are  barbarians. 
Your  law  of  nature,  notwithstanding,  extends  even  to  them.  But 
they  have  misused  their  reason :  they  have  then  the  more  need  of, 
and  would  be  the  more  thankful  for  that  revelation,  w^hich  you, 
with  an  ignorant  and  fastidious  self-sufficiency,  deem  useless.  But 
they  might  of  themselves,  if  they  thought  fit,  become  Avise  and  vir¬ 
tuous.  I  answer  with  Cicero,  “  lit  nihil  interest,  utrum  nemo  valeat, 
an  nemo  valere  possit ;  sic  non  intelligo  quid  intersit,  utrum  nemo 
sit  sapiens,  an  nemo  esse  possit.” 

These,  however,  you  will  think,  are  extraordinary  instances ;  and 
that  we  ought  not  from  these  to  take  our  measure  of  the  excellency 
of  the  law  of  nature,  but  rather  from  the  civilized  states  of  China 
and  Japan,  or  from  the  nations  which  flourished  in  learning  and  in  ' 
arts,  before  Christianity  w^as  heard  of  in  the  world.  You  mean  to 
say,  that  by  the  law  of  nature,  which  you  are  desirous  of  substitut¬ 
ing  in  the  room  of  the  Gospel,  you  do  not  understand  those  rules  of 
conduct,  which  an  individual,  abstracted  from  the  community,  and  ' 
deprived  of  the  institution  of  mankind,  could  excogitate  for  himself; 
but  such  a  system  of  precepts  as  the  most  enlightened  men  of  the 
most  enlightened  ages  have  recommended  to  our  observance. 
Where  do  you  find  this  system  ?  We  cannot  meet  wdth  it  in  the 
works  of  Stobaeus,  or  the  Scythian  Anacharsis ;  nor  in  those  of 
Plato,  or  of  Cicero ;  nor  in  those  of  the  Emperor  Antoninus,  or  the 
slave  Epictetus ;  for  w-e  are  persuaded,  that  the  most  animated  con¬ 
siderations  of  the  irpe-Kov,  and  the  honestnm,  of  the  beauty  of  virtue, 
and  the  fitness  of  things,  are  not  able  to  furnish,  even  a  Brutus  him¬ 
self,  with  permanent  principles  of  action  ;  much  less  are  they  able 
to  purify  the  polluted  recesses  of  a  vitiated  heart,  to  curb  the  irregu¬ 
larity  of  appetite,  or  restrain  the  impetuosity  of  passion  in  common 
men.  If  you  order  us  to  examine  the  w'orks  of  Grotius,  or  Puffen- 
dorffi  or  Burlamaqui,  or  Hutchinson,  for  what  you  understand  by 
the  law  of  nature  ;  we  apprehend  that  you  are  in  a  great  error,  in 
taking  your  notions  of  natural  law,  as  discoverable  by  natural  rea¬ 
son,  from  the  elegant  systems  of  it,  which  have  been  drawn  up  by 
Christian  philosophers ;  since  they  have  all  laid  their  foundations, 
either  tacitly  or  expressly,  upon  a  principle  derived  from  revelation; 
a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  being  and  attributes  of  God  :  and  even 
those  amongst  yourselves,  who,  rejecting  Christianity,  still  continue 
theists,  are  indebted  to  revelation  (whether  you  are  either  aware  ofj 
or  disjiosed  to  acknowledge  the  debt,  or  not)  for  those  sublime 
speculations  concerning  the  Deity,  which  you  have  fondly  atfri’outed 


89 


for  Christianity. 

to  the  excellency  of  your  own  unassisted  reason.  If  you  would 
know  the  real  genius  of  natural  law,  and  how  far  it  can  proceed  in 
the  investigation  or  enforcement  of  moral  duties ;  you  must  consult 
the  manners  and  the  writings  of  those,  who  have  never  heard  of 
either  the  Jewish  or  the  Christian  dispensation,  or  of  those  other 
manifestations  of  himself,  which  God  vouchsafed  to  Adam  and  to 
the  patriarchs  before  and  after  the  flood.  It  would  be  difficult  per¬ 
haps  anywhere,  to  find  a  people  entirely  destitute  of  traditionary 
notices  concerning  the  Deity,  and  of  traditionary  fears  or  expecta¬ 
tions  of  another  life ;  and  the  morals  of  mankind  may  have,  per¬ 
haps,  been  nowhere  quite  so  abandoned  as  they  would  have  been, 
had  they  been  left  wholly  to  themselves  in  these  points :  however, 
it  is  a  truth 'which  cannot  be  denied,  how  much  soever  it  may  be 
lamented,  that  though  the  generality  of  mankind  have  always  had 
some  faint  conceptions  of  Cod  and  his  providence ;  yet  they  have 
been  always  greatly  inefficacious  in  the  production  of  good  morality, 
and  highly  derogatory  to  his  nature,  amongst  all  the  people  of  the 
earth,  except  the  Jews  and  Christians  j  and  some  may  perhaps  be 
desirous  of  excepting  the  Mahometans,  who  derive  all  that  is  good 
in  their  Koran  from  Christianity. 

The  laws  concerning  justice,  and  the  reparation  of  damages,  con¬ 
cerning  the  security  of  property,  and  the  performance  of  contracts ; 
concerning,  in  short,  w'hatever  affects  the  well-being  of  civil  so¬ 
ciety,  have  been  everywhere  understood  with  sufficient  precision ; 
and  if  you  choose  to  style  Justinian’s  code,  a  code  of  natural  law, 
though  you  will  err  against  propriety  of  speech,  yet  you  are  so  far 
in  the  right,  that  natural  reason  discovered,  and  the  depravity  of 
human  nature  compelled  human  kind  to  establish  by  proper  sanc¬ 
tions  the  laws  therein  contained ;  and  you  will  have,  moreover, 
Carneades,  no  mean  philosopher,  on  your  side ;  who  knew  of  no 
law  of  nature  different  from  that  which  men  had  instituted  for  their 
common  utility,  and  which  was  various  according  to  the  manners 
of  men  in  different  climates,  and  changeable  with  a  change  of  times 
in  the  same.  And,  in  truth,  in  all  countries  where  Paganism  has 
been  the  established  religion,  though  a  philosopher  may  now  and 
then  have  stepped  beyond  the  paltry  prescript  of  civil  jurisprudence 
in  his  pursuit  of  virtue ;  yet  the  bulk  of  mankind  have  ever  been 
contented  with  that  scanty  pittance  of  morality,  which  enabled 
them  to  escape  the  lash  of  civil  punishment:  I  call  it  a  scanty 
pittance,  because  a  man  may  be  intemperate,  iniquitous,  impious,  a 
thousand  w^ays  a  profligate  and  a  villain,  and  yet  elude  the  cog¬ 
nizance,  and  avoid  the  punishment  of  civil  laws. 

I  am  sensible,  you  will  be  ready  to  say,  what  is  all  this  to  the 
purpose  ?  Though  the  bulk  of  mankind  may  never  be  able  to  in¬ 
vestigate  the  laws  of  natural  religion,  nor  disposed  to  reverence 
their  sanctions  when  investigated  by  others,  nor  solicitous  about  any 
other  standard  of  moral  rectitude  than  civil  legislation ;  yet  the  in¬ 
conveniences  wffiich  may  attend  the  extirpation  of  Christianity  can 
be  no  proof  of  its  truth :  I  have  not  produced  them  as  a  proof  of  its 
truth ;  but  they  are  a  strong  and  conclusive  proof,  if  not  of  its  truth, 


90 


Watson^ s  Apology 

at  least  of  its  utility ;  and  the  consideration  of  its  utility  may  be  a 
motive  to  yourselves  for  examining,  whether  it  may  not  chance  to 
be  true ;  and  it  ought  to  be  a  reason  with  every  good  citizen,  and 
with  every  man  of  sound  judgment,  to  keep  his  opinions  to  himself, 
if,  from  any  particular  circumstances  in  his  studies  or  in  his  educa¬ 
tion,  he  slvjuld  have  the  misfortune  to  think  that  it  is  not  true.  If 
you  can  discover  to  the  rising  generation  a  better  religion  than  the 
Christian,  one  that  will  more  effectually  animate  their  hopes,  and 
subdue  their  passions,  make  them  better  mdn  or  better  members  of 
society,  we  importune  you  to  publish  it  for  their  advantage ;  but  till 
you  can  do  that,  we  beg  of  you  not  to  give  the  reins  to  their  pas¬ 
sions,  by  instilling  into  their  unsuspicious  minds  your  pernicious  pre¬ 
judices.  Even  now,  men  scruple  not,  by  their  lawless  lust,  to  ruin 
the  repose  of  private  families,  and  to  fix  a  stain  of  infamy  upon  the 
oblest;  even  now,  they  hesitate  not  in  lifting  up  a  murderous  arm 
against  the  life  of  their  friend,  or  against  their  own,  as  often  as  the 
fever  of  intemperance  stimulates  their  resentment,  or  the  satiety  of 
a  useless  life  excites  their  despondency:  even  now,  whilst  we  are 
persuaded  of  a  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  of  a  judgment  to 
come,  we  find  it  difficuh  enough  to  resist  the  solicitations  of  sense, 
and  to  escape  unspotted  fi*om  the  licentious  manners  of  the  world  : 
but  what  will  become  of  our  virtue,  w'hat  of  the  consequent  peace 
and  happiness  of  society,  if  you  persuade  us  that  there  are  no  such 
things?  In  two  words,  ymu  may  ruin  yourselves  by  your  attempt,  and 
you  will  certainly  ruin  your  country  by  your  success. 

But  the  consideration  of  the  inutility  of  your  design  is  not  the 
only  one,  which  should  induce  you  to  abandon  it;  the  argument 
a  tuto  ought  to  be  wearily  managed,  or  it  may  tend  to  the  silencing 
our  opposition  to  any  system  of  superstition,  which  has  had  the  good 
fortune  to  be  sanctified  by  public  authority :  it  is,  indeed,  liable  to 
no  objection  in  the  present  case;  we  do  not,  however,  wholly  rely 
upon  its  cogency.  It  is  not  contended,  that  Christianity  is  to  be  re¬ 
ceived  merely  because  it  is  useful,  but  because  it  is  true.  This  you 
deny,  and  think  your  objections  well  grounded  :  we  conceive  them 
originating  in  your  vanity,  your  immorality,  or  your  misapprehen¬ 
sion.  There  are  many  worthless  doctrines,  many  superstitious  ob¬ 
servances,  which  the  fraud  or  folly  of  mankind  have  everywhere 
a,nnexeii  to  Christianity  (especially  in  the  church  of  Rome),  as  essen¬ 
tial  parts  of  it :  if  you  take  these  Sony  appendages  to  Christianity 
for  Christianity  itself,  as  preached  ly  Christ,  and  by  the  apostles ;  if 
you  confound  the  Roman  xvith  the  Christian  religion,  you  quite  mis¬ 
apprehend  its  nature,  and  are  in  a  state  similar  to  that  of  men  men¬ 
tioned  by  Plutarch,  in  his  Treatise  of  Superstition ;  who,  flying  from 
superstition,  leapt  over  religion,  and  sunk  into  downright  atheism.’*' 


'f'  Le  Papisme  (says  Helvetius  in  a  posthumous  work)  n’est  aux  yeux 
d’un  hoinme  sens6  qu’uiie  pure  idolatrie — nous  sommes  etonn6s  dei’ab- 
snrdit6  de  la  religion  paienne.  Celle  de  la  religion  Papiste  6tonnera  bien 
d’advantage  un  jour  la  posterity.— We  trust,  that  day  is  not  at  a  great 
distance,  and  deism  will  then  be  buried  in  the  ruins  of  the  church  of 


91 


for  Christianity, 

Christianity  is  not  a  religion  very  palatable  to  a  voluptuous  age  ;  it 
Avill  not  conform  its  precepts  to  the  standard  of  fashion ;  it  will  not 
lessen  the  deformity  of  vice  by  lenient  appellations ;  but  calls  keep¬ 
ing,  whoredom ;  intrigue,  adultery ;  and  duelling,  murder :  it  wall 
not  pander  to  lust,  it  will  not  license  the  intemperance  of  mankind ; 
it  is  a  troublesome  monitor  to  a  man  of  pleasure ;  and  your  way  of 
life  may  have  made  you  quarrel  with  your  religion.  As  to  your 
vanity,  as  a  cause  of  your  infidelity,  suffer  me  to  produce  the  senti¬ 
ments  of  M.  Bayle  upon  that  head :  if  the  description  does  not  suit 
your  character,  you  will  not  be  offended  at  it;  and  if  you  are 
offended  with  its  freedom,  it  will  do  ^u  good.  “  This  inclines  me 
to  believe,  that  libertines,  like  Des-Barreaux,  are  not  greatly  per¬ 
suaded  of  the  truth  of  what  they  say.  They  have  made  no  deep 
examination ;  they  have  learned  some  few  objections,  which  they 
are  perpetually  making  a  noise  with ;  they  speak  from  a  pnnciple 
of  ostentation,  and  give  themselves  the  lie  in  the  time  of  danger. 
V^anity  has  a  greater  share  in  their  disputes  than  conscience ;  they 
imagine  that  the  singularity  and  boldness  of  the  opinions,  which 
they  maintain,  will  give  them  the  reputation  of  men  of  parts :  by 
degrees,  they  get  a  habit  of  holding  impious  discourses ;  and  if  their 
vanity  be  accompanied  by  a  voluptuous  life,  their  progress  in  that 

road  IS  the  swifter.* *  i,  •  re 

The  main  stress  of  your  objections  rests  not  upon  the  insuffi¬ 
ciency  of  the  external  evidence  to  the  truth  of  Christianity ;  for  few 
of  you,  though  you  may  become  the  future*  ornaments  of  the  senate, 
or  of  the  bar,  have  ever  employed  an  hour  in  its  examination  ;  but 
upon  the  difficulty  of  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  ;  they  exceed,  you  say,  your  comprehension  ;  and  you  felicitate 
yourselves,  that  you  are  not  yet  arrived  at  the  true  standard  of  or¬ 
thodox  faith — credo  quia  impossibile.  You  think  it  would  be  taking 
a  superfluous  trouble,  to  inquire'  into  the  nature  of  the  external 
proofs  by  which  Christianity  is  established ;  since,  in  your  opinion, 
the  book  itself  carries  with  it  its  own  refutation.  ^  A  gentleman  as 
acute,  probably,  as  any  of  you,  and  who  once  believed,  peAaps,  as 
little  as  any  of  you,  has  drawn  a  quite  different  conclusion  from  the 
perusal  of  the  New  Testament :  his  book  (however  exceptionable  it 
may  be  thought  in  some  particular  parts)  exhibits,  not  only  a  distin¬ 
guished  triumph  of  reason  over  prejudice,  of  Christianity  over 
deism ;  but  it  exhibits,  what  is  infinitely  more  rare,  the  character  of 
a  man,  who  has  had  courage  and  candor  enough  to  acknowledge  it.t 

But  what  if  there  should  be  some  incomprehensible  doctrines  in 
the  Christian  religion ;  some  circumstances,  which  in  their  causes, 
or  their  consequences,  surpass  the  reach  of  human  reason  ;  are  they 
to  be  rejected  upon  that  account  ?  You  are,  or  would  be  thought, 

Rome;  for  the  taking  the  superstition,  the  avarice,  the  ambition,  the  in¬ 
tolerance  of  Antichristianism  for  Christianity,  has  been  the  great  error 
upon  which  infidelity  has  built  its  system,  both  at  home  and  abroad. 

*  Bayle,  Hist.  Diet.  Art.  Des-Barreaux. 

t  See  a  view  of  the  Internal  Evidence,  &c.  by  Soame  Jenyns. 


92 


Walsofi’s  Apology 

men  of  reading,  and  knowledge,  and  enlarged  understandings; 
weigh  the  matter  fairly ;  and  consider  whether  revealed  religion  be 
not,  in  this  respect,  just  upon  the  same  footing  with  every  other  ob¬ 
ject  of  your  contemplation.  Even  in  mathematics,  the  science  of 
demonstration  itself,  though  you  get  over  its  first  principles,  and 
learn  to  digest  the  idea  of  a  point  without  parts,  a  line  without 
breadth,  and  a  surface  without  thickness  ;  yet  you  will  find  yourself 
at  a  loss  to  comprehend  the  perpetual  approximation  of  lines  which 
can  never  meet ;  the  doctrine  of  incommensurables,  and  of  an  in¬ 
finity  of  infinites,  each  infinitely  greater,  or  infinitely  less,  not  only 
than  any  finite  quantity,  but  than  each  other.  In  physics,  you  can¬ 
not  comprehend  the  primary  cause  of  any  thing ;  not  of  the  light, 
by  which  you  see ;  nor  of  the  elasticity  of  the  air,  by  which  you 
hear ;  nor  of  the  fire,  by  which  you  are  warmed.  In  physiology, 
you  cannot  tell  what  first  gave  motion  to  the  heart ;  nor  what  con¬ 
tinues  it;  nor  why  its  motion  is  less  voluntary  than  that  of  the 
lungs ;  nor  why  you  are  able  to  move  your  arm  to  the  right  or  left, 
by  a  simple  volition :  you  cannot  explain  the  cause  of  animal  heat ; 
nor  comprehend  the  principle  by  which  your  body  was  at  first 
formed,  nor  by  which  it  is  sustained,  nor  by  which  it  will  be  re¬ 
duced  to  earth.  In  natural  religion,  you  cannot  comprehend  the 
eternity  or  omnipresence  of  the  Deity ;  nor  easily  understand  how 
his  prescience  can  be  consistent  with  your  freedom,  or  his  immuta¬ 
bility  with  his  government  of  moral  agents ;  nor  why  he  did  not 
make  all  his  creatnres  equally  perfect ;  nor  why  he  did  not  create 
them  sooner ;  in  short,  you  cannot  look  into  any  branch  of  know¬ 
ledge,  but  you  will  meet  with  subjects  above  your  comprehension. 
The  fall  and  the  redemption  of  human  kind  are  not  more  incom¬ 
prehensible  than  the  creation  and  the  conservation  of  the  universe  ; 
the  infinite  Author  of  the  works  of  providence,  and  of  nature,  is 
equally  inscrutable ;  equally  past  our  finding  out  in  them  both. 
And  it  is  somewhat  remarkable,  that  the  deepest  inquirers  into 
nature  have  ever  thought  with  most  reverence,  and  spoken  with 
most  diffidence,  concerning  those  things,  which,  in  revealed  religion, 
may  seem  hard  to  be  understood :  they  have  ever  avoided  that  selfi 
sufficiency  of  knowledge,  which  springs  from  ignorance,  produces 
indifference,  and  ends  in  infidelity.  Admirable  to  this  purpose  is 
the  reflection  of  the  greatest  mathematician  of  the  present  age, 
when  he  is  combating  an  opinion  of  Newton’s  by  an  hypothesis  of 
his  own,  still  less  defensible  than  that  which  he  opposes : — “  Tons 
les  jours  que  je  vois  de  ces  esprits-forts,  qui  critique  les  verites  de 
notre  religion,  et  s’en  mocquent  memo  avec  la  plus  impertinente 
suffisance,  je  pense,  chetifs  mortals !  combien  et  combien  des  choses 
sur  lesquelles  vous  raissonez  si  legerement,  sont  elles  plus  sublimes, 
et  plus  eleves,  que  celles  sur  lesquelles  le  grand  Newton  s’egare  si 
grossierement  !* 

Plato  mentions  a  set  of  men,  who  were  very  ignorant,  and  thought 
themselves  supremely  wise ;  and  who  rejected  the  arguments  for 


*  Euler. 


93 


for  Christianity. 

the  being  of  a  God,  derived  from  the  harmony  and  order  of  the 
universe,  as  old  and  trite."*  There  have  been  men,  it  seems,  in  all 
ages,  who,  in  affecting  singularity,  have  overlooked  truth :  an  argu¬ 
ment,  however,  is  not  the  worse  for  being  old  ;  and  surely  it  would 
have  been  a  more  just  mode  of  reasoning  if  you  had  examined  the 
external  evidence  for  the  truth  of  Christianity,  weighed  the  old  ar¬ 
guments  from  miracles,  and  from  prophecies,  before  you  had  reject¬ 
ed  the  whole  account  from  the  difficulties  you  met  with  in  it.  You 
would  laugh  at  an  Indian,  who  in  peeping  into  a  history  of  Eng¬ 
land,  and  meeting  with  the  mention  of  the  Thames  being  frozen, 
or  of  a  shower  of  hail,  or  of  snow,  should  throw  the  book  aside  as 
unworthy  of  his  farther  notice,  from  his  want  of  ability  to  compre¬ 
hend  these  phenomena. 

In  considering  the  argument  from  miracles,  you  will  soon  be  con¬ 
vinced,  that  it  is  possible  for  God  to  work  miracles ;  and  you  will 
be  convinced,  that  it  is  as  possible  for  human  testimony  to  establish 
the  truth  of  miraculous,  as  of  physical  or  historical  events :  but  be¬ 
fore  you  can  be  convinced  that  the  miracles  in  question  are  support¬ 
ed  by  such  testimony  as  deserves  to  be  credited,  you  must  inquire 
at  what  period,  and.  by  what  persons,  the  books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  were  composed.  If  you  reject  the  account,  with¬ 
out  making  this  examination,  you  reject  it  from  prejudice,  not  from 
reason. 

There  is,  however,  a  short  method  of  examining  this  argument, 
which  may,  perhaps,  make  as  great  an  impression  on  your  minds 
as  any  other.  Three  men  of  distinguished  abilities  rose  up  at  dif¬ 
ferent  times,  and  attacked  Christianity,  with  every  objection  which 
their  malice  could  suggest,  or  their  learning  could  devise:  but 
neither  Celsus  in  the  second  century,  nor  Porphyry  in  the  third, 
nor  the  emperor  Julian  himself  in  the  fourth  century,  ever  ques¬ 
tioned  the  reality  of  the  miracles  related  in  the  Gospels.  Do  but 
you  grant  us  what  these  men  (who  were  more  likely  to  know  the 
truth  of  the  matter  than  you  can  be)  granted  to  their  adversaries, 
and  we  will  very  readily  let  you  make  the  most  of  the  magic,  to 
which,  as  the  last  wretched  shift,  they  were  forced  to  attribute 
them.  We  can  find  you  men,  in  our  days,  who,  from  the  mixture 
of  tw'O  colorless  liquors,  will  produce  you  a  third  as  red  as  blood,  or 
of  any  other  color  you  desire  ;  ei  dicto  citius,  by  a  drop  resembling 
water,  wall  restore  the  transparency ;  they  will  make  two  fluids 
coalesce  into  a  solid  body ;  and,  from  the  mixture  of  liquors  colder 
than  ice,  w'ill  instantly  raise  you  a  horrid  explosion  and  a  tremen¬ 
dous  flame :  these,  and  twenty  other  tricks  they  will  perfoian,  with¬ 
out  having  been  sent  with  our  Saviour  to  Egypt  to  learn  magic ; 
nay,  with  a  bottle  or  two  of  oil  they  will  compose  the  undulations 
of  a  lake ;  and,  by  a  little  art,  they  will  restore  the  functions  of  life 
to  a  man  who  has  been  an  hour  or  two  under  water,  or  a  day  or 
tw'O  buried  in  the  snow :  but  in  vain  will  these  men,  or  the  greatest 
magicians  that  Egypt  ever  saw,  say  to  a  boisterous  sea.  Peace,  be 


*  De  Leg.  lib.  x. 


94 


Watson’s  Apology 

still ;  in  vain  will  they  say  to  a  carcass  rotting  in  the  grave,  Come 
forth :  the  winds  and  the  sea  will  not  obey  them,  and  the  putrid 
carcass  will  not  hear  them.  You  need  not  suffer  yourselves  to  be 
deprived  of  the  weight  of  this  argument,  from  its  having  been  ob¬ 
served,  that  the  fathers  have  acknowledged  the  supernatural  part 
of  Paganism,  since  the  fathers  were  in  no  condition  to  detect  a 
cheat,  which  was  supported  both  by  the  disposition  of  the  people, 
and  the  power  of  the  civil  magistrate  and  they  were  from  that 
mability  forced  to  attribute  to  infernal  agency  what  w'as  too  ctm- 
ningly  contrived  to  be  detected,  and  contrived  for  too  impious  a 
purpose  to  be  credited  as  the  work  of  God. 

With  respect  to  prophecy,  you  may,  perhaps,  have  accustomed 
yourselves  to  consider  it  as  originating  in  Asiatic  enthusiasm,  in 
Chaldean  mystery,  or  in  the  subtle  stratagem  of  interested  priests, 
and  have  given  yourselves  no  more  trouble  concerning  the  predic¬ 
tions  of  sacred,  than  concerning  the  oracles  of  Pagan  history.  Or 
if  you  have  ever  cast  a  glance  upon  this  subject,  the  dissensions  of 
learned  men  concerning  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  Revela¬ 
tion,  and  other  difficult  prophecies,  may  have  made  you  rashly  con¬ 
clude,  that  all  prophecies  were  equally  unintelligible,  and  more 
indebted  for  their  accomplishment  to  a  fortunate  concurrence  of 
events,  and  the  pliant  ingenuity  of  the  expositor,  tlxan  to  the  in¬ 
spired  foresight  of  the  prophet.  In  all  that  the  prophets  of  the 
Old  Testament  have  delivered  concerning  the  destruction  of  par¬ 
ticular  cities,  and  the  desolation  of  particular  kingdoms,  you  may 
see  nothing  but  shrewd  conjectures,  w’hich  any  one  acquainted 
with  the  history  of  the  rise  and  fall  of  empires  might  certainly  have 
made :  and  as  you  would  not  hold  him  for  a  prophet,  who  should 
now  affirm  that  London  or  Paris  would  afford  to  future  ages  a  spec¬ 
tacle  just  as  melancholy  as  that  which  we  now  contemplate,  with 
a  sigh,  in  the  ruins  of  Agrigentum  or  Palmyra ;  so  you  cannot  per¬ 
suade  yourselves  to  believe,  that  the  denunciations  of  the  prophets 
against  the  haughty  cities  of  Tyre  or  Batwlon,  for  instance,  pro¬ 
ceeded  from  the  inspiration  of  the  Deity.  There  is  no  doubt,  that 
by  some  pch  general  kind  of  reasoning  many  are  influenced  to  pay 
no  attention  to  an  argument,  which,  if  properly  considered,  carries 
with  it  the  strongest  conviction. 

Spinoza  said,  that  he  would  have  broken  his  atheistic  system  to  i 
pieces,  and  embraced  without  repugnance  the  ordinary  faith  of 
Cffiristians,  if  he  could  have  persuaded  himself  of  the  resurrection  I 
of  Lazarus  from  the  dead  5  and  I  question  not,  that  there  are  many  * 
msbelievers,  who  would  relinquish  their  deistic  tenets,  and  receive 
the  Gospel,  if  they  could  persuade  themselves,  that  God  had  ever 
so  far  interfered  in  the  moral  government  of  the  world  as  to  illu¬ 
mine  the  mind  of  any  one  man  with  the  knowledge  of  future 
events.  A  miracle  striKes  the  senses  of  the  persons  who  see  it;  a 
prophecy  addresses  itself  to  the  understandings  of  those  who  be¬ 
hold  its  completion ;  and  it  requires,  in  many  cases,  some  learning, 


*  See  Lord  Lyttelton’s  Observations  on  St.  Paul. 


95 


for  Christianity. 

in  all  some  attention,  to  judge  of  the  correspondence  of  events 
with  the  predictions  concerning  them.  No  one  can  be  convinced, 
that  what  Jeremiah  and  the  other  prophets  foretold  of  the  fate  of 
Babylon,  that  it  should  be  besieged  by  the  Medes ;  that  it  should 
be  taken,  when  her  mighty  men  were  drunken,  when  her  springs 
were  dried  up ;  and  that  it  should  become  a  pool  of  water,  and 
should  remain  desolate  for  ever;  no  one,  I  say,  can  be  convinced, 
that  all  these,  and  other  parts  of  the  prophetic  denunciation,  have 
been  minutely  fulfilled,  without  spending  some  time  in  reading  the 
accounts  which  profane  historians  have  delivered  do'wn  to  us  con¬ 
cerning  its  being  taken  by  Cyrus ;  and  which  modern  travellers 
have  given  us  of  its  present  situation. 

Porphyry  was  so  persuaded  of  the  coincidence  between  the  pro¬ 
phecies  of  Daniel  and  the  events,  that  he  was  forced  to  affirm,  the 
prophecies  were  written  after  the  things  prophesied  of  had  hap¬ 
pened.  Another  Porphyry  has,  in  our  days,  been  so  astonished  at 
the  correspondence  between  the  prophecy  concerning  the  destruc¬ 
tion  of  Jerusalem,  as  related  by  St.  Matthew,  and  the  history  of 
that  event,  as  recorded  by  Josephus ;  that,  rather  than  embrace 
Christianity,  he  has  ventured  (contrary  to  the  faith  of  all  ecclesias¬ 
tical  history,  the  opinion  of  the  learned  of  all  ages,  and  all  the  rules 
of  good  criticism)  to  assert,  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  his  Gospel  after 
Jerusalem  had  been  taken  and  destroyed  by  the  Romans.  You  may 
from  these  instances  perceive  the  strength  of  the  argument  from 
prophecy;  it  has  not  been  able  indeed  to  vanquish  the  prejudices 
of  either  the  ancient  or  the  modern  Porphyry ;  but  it  has  been  able 
to  compel  them  both  to  be  guilty  of  obvious  falsehoods,  which  have 
nothing  but  impudent  assertions  to  support  them. 

Some  over-zealous  interpreters  of  Scripture  have  found  prophe¬ 
cies  in  simple  narrations,  extended  real  predictions  beyond  the  times 
and  circumstances  to  which  they  naturally  were  applied,  and  per¬ 
plexed  their  readers  with  a  thousand  quaint  allusions  and  allegori¬ 
cal  conceits  :  this  proceeding  has  made  men  of  sense  pay  less  regard 
to  prophecy  *n  general.  There  are  some  predictions,  however,  such 
as  those  concerning  the  present  state  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  the 
corruptions  of  Christianity,  which  are  now  fulfilling  in  the  world  ; 
and  which,  if  you  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine  them,  you  wall 
find  of  such  an  extraordinary  nature,  that  you  will  not  perhaps  hesi¬ 
tate  to  refer  them  to  God  as  their  author;  and  if  you  once  become 
persuaded  of  the  truth  of  any  one  miracle,  or  of  the  completion  of 
any  one  prophecy,  you  will  resolve  all  your  difficulties  (concerning 
the  manner  of  God’s  interposition  in  the  moral  government  of  our 
species,  and  the  nature  of  the  doctrines  contained  in  revelation) 
into  your  own  inability  fully  to  comprehend  the  whole  scheme  of 
divine  Providence. 

We  are  told,  however,  that  the  strangeness  of  the  narration,  and 
the  difficulty  of  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  New  Testament,  are 
not  the  only  circumstances  wffiich  induce  you  to  reject  it ;  you  have 
discovered,  you  think,  so  many  contradictions  in  the  accounts  which 
the  Evangelists  have  given  of  the  life  of  Christ,  that  you  are  com- 


96 


Waison^s  Apology 

?elled  to  consider  the  whole  as  an  ill-digested  and  improbable  stoiy 
"ou  would  not  reason  thus  u]X)n  any  other  occasion ;  you  would 
not  reject  as  fabulous  the  accounts  given  by  Livy  and  rolybius  of 
Hannibal  and  the  Carthaginians,  though  you  should  discover  a  dif¬ 
ference  betwixt  them  in  several  points  of  little  importance.  You 
carmot  compare  the  history  of  the  same  events,  as  delivered  by  any 
two  historians,  but  you  will  meet  with  many  circumstances,  which, 
though  mentioned  by  one,  are  either  wholly  omitted,  or  differently 
related  by  the  other ;  and  this  observation  is  peculiarly  applicable 
to  biographical  writings :  but  no  one  ever  thought  of  disbelieving 
the  leading  circumstances  of  the  lives  of  Vitellius  or  Vespasian,  be¬ 
cause  Tacitus  and  Suetonius  did  not  in  every  thing  correspond  in 
their  accounts  of  these  emperors.  And  if  the  memoirs  of  the  life 
and  doctrines  of  M.  de  Voltaire  himself  w  ere,  some  tw’enty  or  thirty 
years  after  his  death,  to  be  delivered  to  the  world  by  four  of  his 
most  intimate  acquaintance,  I  do  not  apprehend  that  we  should  dis¬ 
credit  the  whole  account  of  such  an  extraordinary  man,  by  reason 
of  some  slight  inconsistencies  and  contradictions,  which  the  avowed 
enemies  of  his  name  might  chance  to  discover  in  the  several  narra¬ 
tions.  Though  we  should  grant  you,  then,  that  the  evangelists  had 
fallen  into  some  trivial  contradictions,  in  what  they  have  related 
concerning  the  life  of  Christ ;  yet  you  ought  not  to  draw  any  other 
inference  from  our  concession  than  that  they  had  not  plotted  to¬ 
gether,  as  cheats  would  have  done,  in  order  to  give  an  unexcep-  ■ 
tionable  consistency  to  their  fraud.  We  are  not  however  disposed  | 
to  make  you  any  such  concesssion ;  we  will  rather  show  you  the 
futility  of  your  general  argument,  by  touching  upon  a  few  of  the 
places  which  you  think  are  most  liable  to  your  censure. 

You  observe,  that  neither  Luke,  nor  Mark,  nor  John  have  men¬ 
tioned  the  cruelty  of  Herod  in  murdering  the  infants  of  Bethlehem; 
and  that  no  account  is  to  be  found  of  this  matter  in  Josephus,  who 
wrote  the  life  of  Herod ;  and  therefore  the  fact  recorded  by  Matthew 
is  not  true.  The  concurrent  testimony  of  many  independent  writers 
concerning  a  matter  of  fact  unquestionably  adds  to  its  probability ; 
but  if  nothing  is  to  be  received  as  true,  upon  the  testimony  of  a 
single  author,  we  must  give  up  some  of  the  best  writers,  and  disbe¬ 
lieve  some  of  the  most  interesting  facts  of  ancient  history. 

According  to  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  there  was  only  an  inter¬ 
val  of  three  months,  you  say,  between  the  baptism  and  crucifixion 
of  Jesus ;  from  which  time,  taking  away  the  forty  days  of  the  tempt¬ 
ation,  there  will  only  remain  about  six  weeks  for  the  whole  period 
of  his  public  ministry ;  which  lasted,  however,  according  to  St.  John, 
at  the  least  above  three  years.  Your  objection  fairly  stated,  stands 
thus :  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  in  writing  the  history  of  Jesus 
Christ,  mention  the  several  events  of  his  life,  as  following  one  an¬ 
other  in  continued  succession,  without  taking  notice  of  the  times  in 
W'hich  they  happened  :  but  is  it  a  just  conclusion  from  their  silence 
to  infer,  that  there  really  were  no  intervals  of  time  between  the 
transactions  which  they  seem  to  have  connected  ?  Many  instances 
might  be  produced,  from  the  most  admired  biographers  of  antiquity. 


for  Christianity.  97 

in  which  events  are  related  as  immediately  consequent  to  each 
other,  which  did  not  happen  but  at  very  distant  periods :  we  have 
an  obvious  example  of  this  manner  of  writing  in  St.  Matthew ;  who 
connects  the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist  with  the  return  of  Joseph 
from  Eg^-pt,  though  we  are  certain  that  the  latter  event  preceded 
the  former  by  a  great  maiw  years. 

John  has  said  nothing  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord’s  supper  ;  the 
other  evangelists  have  said  nothing  of  the  washing  of  the  disciples’ 
feet.  What  then  ?  are  you  not  ashamed  to  produce  these  facts  as 
instances  of  contradiction  ?  If  omissions  are  contradictions,  look  into 
the  history  of  the  age  of  Louis  XIV.,  or  into  the  general  history  of 
M.  de  Voltaire,  and  you  will  meet  with  a  great  abundance  of  con¬ 
tradictions. 

John,  in  mentioning  the  discourses  which  Jesus  had  with  his  mo¬ 
ther  and  his  beloved  disciple,  at  the  time  of  his  crucifixion,  says, 
that  she,  with  Mary  Magdalene,  stood  near  the  cross.  Matthew,  on 
the  other  hand,  says,  that  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other  women 
W’ere  there,  beholding  afar  off  This  you  think  a  manifest  contra¬ 
diction  ;  and  scoffingly  inquire,  whether  the  women  and  the  beloved 
disciple,  which  w^ere  near  the  cross,  could  be  the  same  with  those 
who  stood  far  from  the  cross  ?  It  is  difficult  not  to  transgress  the 
bounds  of  moderation  and  good  manners,  in  answering  such  sophis¬ 
ts  What !  have  you  to  learn,  that  though  the  evangelists  speak 
of  the  crucifixion  as  of  one  event,  it  was  not  accomplished  in  one 
instant,  but  lasted  several  hours  ?  And  why  the  women,  who  were 
at  a  distance  fi.*om  the  cross,  might  not,  during  its  continuance,  draw 
near  the  cross ;  or,  from  being  near  the  cross,  might  not  move  from 
the  cross,  is  more  than  you  can  explain  to  either  us  or  yourselves. 
And  we  take  from  you  your  only  refuge,  by  denying  expressly,  that 
the  different  evangelists,  in  their  mention  of  the  women,  speak  of 
the  same  point  of  time. 

The  evangelists,  you  affirm,  are  fallen  into  gross  contradictions, 
in  their  accounts  of  the  appearances  by  which  Jesus  manifested 
himself  to  his  disciples,  after  his  resurrection  from  the  dead for 
Matthew  speaks  of  two,  Mark  of  three,  Luke  of  two,  and  John  of 
four.  That  contradictory  propositions  cannot  be  true  is  readil 
granted ;  and  if  you  wall  produce  the  place  in  w  hich  Matthew  says 
that  Jesus  Christ  appeared  twice,  and  no  oftener,  it  will  be  furthe 
granted,  that  he  is  contradicted  by  John  in  a  veiy  material  part  of 
his  narration ;  but  till  you  do  that,  you  must  excuse  me,  if  I  cannot 
grant,  that  the  evangelists  have  contradicted  each  other  in  this 
point ;  for  to  common  understandings  it  is  pretty  evident,  that  if 
Christ  appeared  four  times  according  to  John’s  account,  he  must 
have  appeared  twice  according  to  that  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  and 
thrice  according  to  that  of  Mark. 

The  different  evangelists  are  not  only  accused  of  contradicting 
each  other,  but  Luke  is  said  to  have  contradicted  himself;  for  in  his 
Gospel  he  tells  us,  that  Jesus  ascended  into  heaven  from  Bethany; 
and  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  of  which  he  is  the  reputed  author, 
he  infijriTLS  us  that  he  ascended  from  Mount'Olivct.  Your  objection 


98 


Watson\‘i  Apology 

proceeds  either  from  your  ignorance  of  geography,  or  your  ill-will 
to  Christianity;  and  upon  either  supposition  deserves  our  contempt; 
be  pleased,  however,  to  remember  for  the  future,  that  Bethany  was 
not  only  the  name  of  a  town,  but  of  a  district  of  Mount  Olivet  ad¬ 
joining  to  the  town. 

From  this  specimen  of  the  contradictions  ascribed  to  the  historians 
of  the  life  of  Christ,  you  may  judge  for  yourselves  what  little  reason 
there  is  to  reject  Christianity  upon  their  account;  and  how  sadly 
you  will  be  imposed  upon  (in  a  matter  of  more  consequence  to  you 
than  any  other)  if  you  take  every  thing  for  a  contradiction,  which 
the  uncandid  adversaries  of  Christianity  think  proper  to  call  one. 

Before  I  put  an  end  to  this  address,  I  cannot  help  taldng  notice 
of  an  argument,  by  which  some  philosophers  have  of  late  endea¬ 
vored  to  overturn  the  whole  system  of  revelation;  and  it  is  the 
more  necessary  to  give  an  answer  to  their  objection,  as  it  is  become 
a  common  subject  of  philosophical  conversation,  especially  amongst 
those  who  have  visited  the  continent.  The  objection  tends  to  in¬ 
validate,  as  is  supposed,  the  authority  of  Moses,  W  showing,  that  the 
earth  is  much  older  than  it  can  be  proved  to  be  from  his  account  of 
the  creation,  and  the  Scripture  chronology.  We  contend,  that  six 
thousand  years  have  not  yet  elapsed  since  the  creation  ;  and  these 
philosophers  contend,  that  they  have  indubitable  proof  of  the  earth’s 
being  at  the  least  fourteen  thousand  years  old  ;  and  they  complain 
that  Moses  hangs  as  a  dead  weight  upon  them,  and  Idunts  all  their 
zeal  for  inquiry.* 

The  Canonico  Recupero,  who,  it  seems,  is  engaged  in  writing  the 
history  of  Mount  Etna,  has  discovered  a  stratum  of  lava,  which 
flowed  from  that  mountain,  according  to  his  opinion,  in  the  time  of 
the  second  Punic  war,  or  about  two  thousand  years  ago ;  this  stra¬ 
tum  is  not  yet  covered  with  soil  sufficient  for  the  production  of 
either  corn  or  vines ;  it  requires  then,  says  the  Canon,  two  thousand 
years  at  least  to  convert  a  stratum  of  lava  into  a  fertile  field.  In 
sinking  a  pit  near  Jaci,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Etna,  they  have  dis¬ 
covered  evident  marks  of  seven  distinct  lavas,  one  under  the  other ; 
the  surfaces  of  which  are  parallel,  and  most  of  them  covered  with  a 
thick  bed  of  rich  earth ;  now,  the  eruption  which  formed  the  lowest 
part  of  these  lavas  (if  we  may  be  allowed  to  reason,  says  the  Canon, 
from  analogy)  flowed  from  the  mountain  at  least  fourteen  thousand 
years  ago.  It  might  be  briefly  answered  to  this  objection,  by  deny¬ 
ing,  that  there  is  any  thing  in  the  history  of  Moses  repugnant  to  this 
opinion  concerning  the  great  antiquity  of  the  earth ;  for  though  the 
rise  and  progress  of  arts  and  sciences,  and  the  small  multiplication 
of  the  human  species,  render  it  almost  to  a  demonstration  probable 
that  man  has  not  existed  longer  upon  the  surface  of  this  earth  than 
according  to  the  Mosaic  account;  yet  that  the  earth  itself  was  then 
created  out  of  nothing,  when  man  was  placed  upon  it,  is  not,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  sentiments  of  some  philosophers,  to  be  proved  from  the 
original  text  of  sacred  Scripture ;  Ave  miglit,  I  say,  reply  with  these 


*  Brydone’s  Travels. 


99 


for  Christianity. 

philosophers  to  this  formidable  objection  of  the  Canon,  by  granting 
It  in  its  full  extent;  we  are  under  no  necessity,  however,  of 
adopting  their  opinion,  in  order  to  show  the  weakness  of  the  Canon’s 
reasoning.  For,  in  the  first  place,  the  Canon  has  not  satisfactorily 
established  his  main  fact,  that  the  lava  in  question  is  the  identical 
lava  which  Diodorus  Siculus  mentions  to  have  flowed  from  Etna,  in 
the  second  Carthaginian  war ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  it  may  be 
observed,  that  the  time  necessary  for  converting  lava  into  fertile 
fields  must  be  very  different,  according  to  the  different  consistencies 
of  the  lavas,  and  their  different  situations,  with  respect  to  elevation 
or  depression ;  to  their  being  exposed  to  winds,  rains,  and  to  other 
circumstances ;  just  as  the  time  in  which  the  heaps  of  iron  slag 
(which  resembles  lava)  are  covered  with  verdure,  is  different  at  dif 
ferent  furnaces,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  slag,  and  situation  of 
the  furnace  ;  and  something  of  this  kind  is  deducible  from  the  ac¬ 
count  of  the  Canon  himself;  since  the  crevices  of  this  famous  stra¬ 
tum  are  really  full  of  rich,  good  soil,  and  have  pretty  large  trees 
growing  in  them. 

But  if  all  this  should  be  thought  not  sufficient  to  remove  the  ob¬ 
jection,  I  will  produce  the  Canon  an  analogy  in  opposition  to  his 
analogy,  and  which  is  grounded  on  more  certain  facts.  Etna  and 
Vesuvius  resemble  each  other,  in  the  causes  which  produce  their 
eruptions,  and  in  the  nature  of  their  lavas,  and  in  the  time  neces¬ 
sary  to  mellow  them  into  soil  fit  for  vegetation ;  or  if  there  be  any 
slight  difference  in  this  respect,  it  is  probably  not  greater  than  what 
subsists  between  different  lavas  of  the  same  mountain.  This  being 
admitted,  wdiich  no  philosopher  will  deny,  the  Canon’s  analogy 
will  prove  just  nothing  at  all,  if  we  can  produce  an  instance  of 
seven  different  lavas  (with  interjacent  strata  of  vegetable  earth), 
which  have  flowmd  from  Mount  Vesuvius,  within  the  space,  not  of 
fourteen  thousand,  but  of  somewhat  less  than  seventeen  hundred 
years  ;  for  then,  according  to  our  analogy,  a  stratum  of  lava  may  be 
covered  with  vegetable  soil  in  about  two  hundred  and  fifty  years, 
instead  of  requiring  two  thousand  for  the  purpose.  The  eruption 
of  Vesuvius,  which  destroyed  Herculaneum  and  Pompeii,  is  ren¬ 
dered  still  more  famous  by  the  death  of  Pliny,  recorded  by  his 
nephew  in  his  letter  to  Tacitus ;  this  event  happened  in  the  yeai 
79;  it  is  not  yet  then  quite  seventeen  hundred  years  since  Hercula¬ 
neum  was  swallowed  up ;  but  we  are  informed  by  unquestionable 
authority,  that  “  the  matter  which  covers  the  ancient  town  of  Her¬ 
culaneum  is  not  the  produce  of  one  eruption  only ;  for  there  are 
evident  marks,  that  the  matter  of  six  eruptions  has  taken  its  course 
over  that  which  lies  immediately  above  the  town,  and  was  the 
cause  of  its  destruction.  These  strata  are  either  of  lava  or  burnt 
matter,  with  veins  of  good  soil  betwixt  them.”*  I  will  not  add  another 
word  upon  this  subject ;  except  that  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  w’as 
not  much  out  in  his  advice  to  Canonico  Recupero ;  to  take  care  not 


*■  See  Sir  William  Hamilton’s  Eemarks  upon  the  Nature  of  the  Soil 
of  Naples  and  its  Neighborhood,  in  the  Philos.  Trans,  vol.  Ixi.  p,  7. 


100 


Watson^ s  Apology 

to  make  his  mountain  older  than  Moses ;  though  it  would  have  been 
full  as  well  to  have  shut  his  mouth  with  a  reason,  as  to  have  stopped 
it  with  the  dread  of  an  ecclesiastical  censure. 

You  perceive  with  what  ease  a  little  attention  will  remove  a 
great  difficulty ;  but  had  we  been  able  to  say  nothing  in  explanation 
of  this  phenomenon,  we  should  not  have  acted  a  very  rational  part 
in  making  our  ignorance  the  foundation  of  our  infidelity,  or  suflfer- 
ing  a  minute  philosopher  to  rob  us  of  our  religion. 

Your  objections  to  revelation  may  be  numerous ;  you  may  find 
fault  with  the  account  which  Moses  has  given  of  the  creation  and 
the  fall ;  you  may  not  be  able  to  get  water  enough  for  a  universal 
deluge  ;  nor  room  enough  in  the  ark  of  Noah  for  all  the  different 
kinds  of  aerial  and  terrestrial  animals  ;  you  may  be  dissatisfied  with 
the  command  for  sacrificing  of  Isaac,  for  plundering  the  Egyptians, 
and  for  extirpating  the  Canaanites ;  you  may  find  fault  with  the 
Jewish  economy,  for  its  ceremonies,  its  sacrifices,  and  its  multipli¬ 
city  of  priests ;  you  may  object  to  the  imprecations  in  the  Psalms, 
and  think  the  immoralities  of  David  a  fit  subject  for  dramatic  ridi¬ 
cule  you  may  look  upon  the  partial  promulgation  of  Christianity 
as  an  insuperable  objection  to  its  truth,  and  w'aywardly  reject  the 
goodness  of  God  toward  yourselves,  because  you  do  not  compre¬ 
hend  how  you  have  deserved  it  more  than  others ;  you  may  know 
nothing  of  the  entrance  of  sin  and  death  into  the  w'orld  by  one 
man’s  transgression ;  nor  be  able  to  comprehend  the  doctrine  of  the 
cross,  and  of  redemption  by  Jesus  Christ ;  in  short,  if  your  mind  is 
so  disposed,  you  may  find  food  for  your  scepticism  in  every  page  of 
the  Bible,  as  well  as  in  every  appearance  of  nature  ;  and  it  is  not 
in  the  power  of  any  person,  but  youreelves,  to  clear  up  your  doubts  ; 
you  must  read,  and  you  must  think  for  yourselves ;  and  you  must 
do  both  with  temper,  with  candor,  and  with  care.  Infidelity  is  a 
rank  weed  ;  it  is  nurtured  by  our  vices,  and  cannot  be  plucked  up 
as  easily  as  it  may  be  planted.  Your  difficulties  with  respect  to 
revelation  may  have  first  arisen  from  your  own  reflection  on  the 
religious  indifierence  of  those,  whom,  from  your  earliest  infanc}^ 
you  have  been  accustomed  to  revere  and  imitate :  domestic  irre- 
ligion  may  have  made  you  a  willing  hearer  of  libertine  conversa¬ 
tion  ;  and  the  uniform  prejudices  of  the  w'orld  may  have  finished 
the  business,  at  a  very  early  age,  and  left  you  to  w'ander  through 
life,  without  a  principle  to  direct  your  conduct,  and  to  die  without 
hope.  We  are  far  from  wishing  you  to  trust  the  word  of  the  clergy 
for  the  truth  of  your  religion ;  w'e  beg  of  you  to  examine  it  to  the 
bottom,  to  t^  it,  to  prove  it,  and  not  to  hold  it  fast  unless  you  find 
it  good.  Till  you  are  disposed  to  undertake  this  task,  it  becomes 
you  to  consider  with  great  seriousness  and  attention,  whether  it  can 
be  for  your  interest  to  esteem  a  few  witty  sarcasms,  or  metaphysic 
subtleties,  or  ignorant  misrepresentations,  or  unwarranted  assertions, 


*  See  Saul  et  David  Hyperdrame.  Whatever  censure  the  author  of 
this  com . 00=1 1 ion  may  deserve  for  his  intention,  the  work  itself  deserves 
none  ;  its  ridicule  is  loo  gross  to  mislead  even  the  ignorant. 


101 


for  Christianity, 

as  unanswerable  arguments  against  revelation ;  and  a  very  slight 
reflection  wall  convince  you,  that  it  will  certainly  be  for  your  repu¬ 
tation  to  employ  the  flip^ncy  of  your  rhetoric,  and  the  poignancy 
of  your  ridicule,  upon  any  subject  rather  than  upon  the  subject  of 

religion.  .  •  • 

I  take  my  leave  with  recommendmg  to  your  notice  the  advice 
which  Mr.  Locke  gave  to  \  young  man,  who  was  desirous  of  be¬ 
coming  acquainted  with  the  (ioctrines  of  the  Christian  rehgion 
“Study  the  holy  Scripture,  especially  the  New  Testament:  therein 
are  contained  the  words  of  eternal  life.  It  has  God  for  its  author, 
salvation  for  its  end,  and  truth  without  any  mixture  of  error  for  its 
matter.”*  I  am,  &c. 


*  Locke’s  Posthumous  Works. 
7 


AN 

APOLOGY  FOR  THE  BIBLE, 

IN 

A  SERIES  OF  LETTERS, 

ADDRESSED  TO 

THOMAS  PAINE, 

AUTHOR  OF  A  BOOK,  ENTITLED,  THE  AGE  OF  REASON,  PART  THE 
SECOND,  BEING  AN  INVESTIGATION  OF  TRUE  AND  OF 
FABULOUS  THEOLOGY. 

BY 

R.  WATSON,  D.  I).  F.  R.  S. 

LORD  BISHOP  OF  LANDAFF,  AND  REGIUS  PROFESSOR  OP  DIVINITY 
IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CAMBRIDGE. 


»  ■  > 


•X 


J5  ‘h-ti  '•<- 


er . 


•  I 


-!•! 


l( 


i 


V 


A. 


AN 


APOLOGY  FOR  THE  BIBLE. 


LETTER  I. 

Sir  ; — I  have  lately  met  with  a  book  of  yours,  entitled,  “  The 
Age  of  Reason,  part  the  second,  being  an  investigation  of  true  and 
of  fabulous  theology and  think  it  not  inconsistent  with  my  station, 
and  the  duty  I  owe  to  society,  to  trouble  you  and  the  world  with 
some  observations  on  so  extraordinary  a  performance.  Extraordinary 
I  esteem  it;  not  from  any  novelty  in  the  objections  which  you  have 
produced  against  revealed  religion  (for  I  find  little  or  no  novelty  in 
them),  but  from  the  zeal  with  which  you  labor  to  disseminate  your 
opinions,  and  from  the  confidence  with  which  you  esteem  them 
true.  You  perceive,  by  this,  that  I  give  you  credit  for  your  sin¬ 
cerity,  how  much  soever  I  may  question  your  wisdom,  in  writing  in 
5uch  a  manner  on  such  a  subject ;  and  I  have  no  reluctance  in 
acknowledging,  that  you  possess  a  considerable  share  of  energy  of 
language,  and  acuteness  of  investigation ;  though  I  must  be  allowed 
to  lament,  that  these  talents  have  not  been  applied  in  a  manner 
more  useful  to  hmnan  kind,  and  more  creditable  to  yourself. 

I  begin  with  your  preface.  You  therein  state,  that  you  had  long 
had  an  intention  of  publishing  your  thoughts  upon  religion,  but  that 
jrou  had  originally  reserved  it  to  a  later  period  in  life.  I  hope  there 
is  no  want  of  charity  in  saying,  that  it  would  have  been  fortunate 
for  the  Christian  world,  had  your  life  been  terminated  before  you 
had  fulfilled  your  intention.  In  accomplishing  your  purpose  you  will 
have  unsettled  the  faith  of  thousands ;  rooted  from  the  minds  of  the 
unhappy  virtuous  all  their  comfortable  assurance  of  a  future  recom- 
pense  ;  have  annihilated  in  the  minds  of  the  flagitious  all  their  fears  of 
future  punishment ;  you  wall  have  given  the  reins  to  the  domination 
of  every  passion,  and  have  thereby  contributed  to  the  introduction 
of  the  public  insecurity,  and  of  the  private  unhappiness,  usually, 
and  almost  necessarily  accompanying  a  state  of  corrupted  morals. 

No  one  can  think  worse  of  confession  to  a  priest,  and  subsequent 
absolution,  as  practised  in  the  church  of  Rome,  than  I  do ;  but  I 
cannot,  with  you,  attribute  the  guillotine-massacres  to  that  cause. 
Men’s  minds  were  not  prepared,  as  you  suppose,  for  the  commission 
of  all  manner  of  crimes,  by  any  doctrines  of  the  church  of  Rome, 
corrupted  as  I  esteem  it,  but  by  their  not  thoroughly  believing  even 
that  religion.  What  may  not  society  expect  from  those,  who  shall 
imbibe  the  principles  of  your  book  ? 

A  fever,  which  you,  and  those  about  you,  expected  wmuld  prove 
mortal,  made  you  remember,  with  renewed  satislactiop,  that  you 


106  Watson's  Apology 

had  written  the  former  part  of  your  Age  of  Reason;  and  you  know’, 
tlierefore,  you  say,  by  experience,  the  conscientious  trial  of  your 
own  principles.  I  admit  this  declaration  to  be  a  proof  of  the  sin¬ 
cerity  of  your  persuasion,  but  I  cannot  admit  it  to  be  any  proof  of 
the  truth  of  your  principles.  What  is  conscience  ?  Is  it,  as  has  been 
thought,  an  internal  monitor  implanted  in  us  by  the  Supreme  Being, 
and  dictating  to  us,  on  all  occasions,  wdiat  is  right  or  wuong  ?  Or  is 
it  merely  our  own  judgment  of  the  moral  rectitude  or  turpitude  of 
our  own  actions  ?  I  take  the  word  (with  Mr.  Locke)  in  the  latter,  as 
in  the  only  intelligible  sense.  Now  who  sees  not,  that  our  judgments 
of  virtue  and  vice,  right  and  wrong,  are  not  always  formed  from  an 
enlightened  and  dispassionate  use  of  our  reason,  in  the  investigation 
of  truth  ?  They  are  more  generally  formed  from  the  nature  of  the 
I’eligion  W’e  profess;  from  the  quality  of  the  civil  government  under 
W’hich  we  live ;  from  the  general  manners  of  the  age,  or  the  par¬ 
ticular  manners  of  the  persons  with  whom  we  associate ;  from  the 
education  we  have  had  in  our  youth;  from  the  books  we  have  read 
at  a  more  advanced  period;  and  from  other  accidental  causes. 
Who  sees  not,  that,  on  this  account,  conscience  may  be  conformable 
or  repugnant  to  the  law  of  nature  ?  may  be  certain,  or  doubtful  ? 
and  that  it  can  be  no  criterion  of  moral  rectitude,  even  when  it  is 
certain,  because  the  certainty  of  an  opinion  is  no  proof  of  its  being 
a  right  opinion  ?  A  man  may  be  certainly  persuaded  of  an  error  in 
reasoning,  or  of  an  untruth  in  matters  of  fact.  It  is  a  maxim  of 
every  law,  human  and  divine,  that  a  man  ought  never  to  act  in  op¬ 
position  to  his  conscience  ;  but  it  will  not  from  thence  follow,  that 
he  will,  in  obeying  the  dictates  of  his  conscience,  on  all  occasions 
act  right.  An  inquisitor,  who  burns  Jews  and  heretics ;  a  Robes¬ 
pierre,  who  massacres  innocent  and  harmless  women;  a  robber, 
who  thinks  that  all  things  ought  to  be  in  common,  and  that  a  state 
of  property  is  an  unjust  infringement  of  natural  liberty; — these,  and 
a  thousand  perpetrators  of  different  crimes,  may  all  follow  the  dic¬ 
tates  of  conscience;  and  may,  at- the  real  or  supposed  approach  of 
death,  remember  “  with  renewed  satisfaction”  the  worst  of  their 
transactions,  and  experience,  without  dismay,  “  a  conscientious  trial 
of  their  principles.”  But  this  their  conscientious  composure  can  be 
no  proof  to  others  of  the  rectitude  of  their  principles,  and  ought  to 
be  no  pledge  to  themselves  of  their  innocence  in  adhering  to  them. 

I  have  thought  fit  to  make  this  remark,  with  a  view  of  suggesting 
to  you  a  consideration  of  great  importance,  whether  you  have  ex¬ 
amined  calmly,  and  according  to  the  best  of  your  ability,  the  argu¬ 
ments  by  which  the  truth  of  revealed  religion  may,  in  the  judgment 
of  learned  and  impartial  men,  be  established  ?  You  will  allow,  that 
thousands  of  learned  and  impartial  men  (I  speak  not  of  priests,  who, 
liowever,  are,  I  trust,  as  learned  and  impartial  as  yourself,  but  of 
laymen  of  the  most  splendid  talents),  you  will  allow,  that  thousands 
of  these,  in  all  ages,  have  embraced  revealed  religion  as  true. 
Whether  these  men  have  all  been  in  an  error,  enveloped  in  the 
darkness  of  ignorance,  shackled  by  the  chains  of  superstition,  whilst 


for  the  Bible. 


107 


you  and  a  few  others  have  enjoyed  light  and  liberty,  is  a  question  I 
submit  to  the  decision  of  your  readers.  ,  .  •  » 

If  you  have  made  the  best  examination  you  can,  and  yet  reject 
revealed  religion  as  an  imposture,  I  pray  that  God  may  pardon  what 
I  esteem  your  error.  And  whetlier  you  have  made  this  exaimna- 
tioii  or  not,  does  not  become  me  or  any  man  to  determine.  That 
Gospel,  which  you  despise,  has  taught  me  this  moderation ;  it  has 
said  to  me,  “Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another  man’s  servant?  to 
his  owm  master  he  standeth  or  falleth.”  I  think  that  you  are 
error ;  but  whether  that  error  be  to  you  a  vincible  or  an  invincible 
error,  I  presume  not  to  determine.  I  know,  indeed,  where  it  is 
^aid,  “  that,  the  preaching  of  the  cross  is  to  them  that  perish,  loolisli- 
ness :  and  that  if  the  Gospel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them  that  are  lost. 
The  consequence  of  your  unbelief  must  be  left  to  the  just  and  mer¬ 
ciful  judgment  of  him,  who  alone  knoweth  the  mechanisin  and  the 
liberty  of  our  understandings;  the  origin  of  our  opinions;  the 
strength  of  our  prejudices ;  the  excellencies  and  the  delects  ot  our 

reasoning  faculties.  . 

I  shall,  designedly,  write  this  and  the  folloxving  Letters  in  a  popu¬ 
lar  manner ;  hopto.g  that  thereby  they  may  stand  a  chance  O-  being 
perused  by  that  c-ass  of  readers,  for  whom  your  work  seenas  to  be 
parlicularfy  calc’^iated,  and  who  are  the  most  likely  to  be  iiyuied 
by  it  The  reall  i  .earned  are  in  no  danger  of  being  infected  by  the 
poison  of  infideli'*.  ;  they  will  excuse  me,  therefore,  for  having  en¬ 
tered  as  little  as  possible  into  deep  disqmsitions  concerning  the  au¬ 
thenticity  of  the  Bible.  The  subject  has  been  so  learnedly,  and  so 
frequently  handled  by  other  writers,  that  it  does  not  want  (I  had 
almost  said,  it  does  not  admit)  any  farther  proof  And  it  is  the 
more  necessary  to  adopt  this  mode  of  answering  your  book,  because 
you  disclaim  all  learned  appeals  to  other  books,  and  undertake  to 
prove,  from  the  Bible  itself,  that  it  is  unworthy  of  credit.  I  hope  to 
show,  from  the  Bible  itself  the  direct  contrary.  But  in  case  any  of 
your  readers  should  think  that  you  had  not  put  forth  all  your 
streno-lh,  by  not  referring  for  proof  of  your  opinion  to  ancient  au- 
ihorsl  lest  they  should  suspect,  that  all  ancient  authors  are  in  your 
favor ;  I  will  venture  to  affirm,  that  had  you  made  a  learned  appeal 
to  all  the  ancient  books  in  the  world,  sacred  or  profane,  Christian, 
Jewish,  or  Pagan,  instead  of  lessening,  they  would  have  established 
tiie  credit  and  authority  of  the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God.  , 

Quittinf  your  preface,  let  us  proceed  to  the  wnrk  itself ;  in  which 
there  is  much  repetition,  and  a  defect  of  proper  arranger^nt.  1 
will  follow  your  track,  however,  as  nearly  as  I  can.  The  hmt 
question  you  propose  for  consideration  is,  “Whether  there  ^ 
cient  authority  for  believing  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God,  or 
whether  there'  is  not  ?”  You  determine  this  question  in  the  negative, 
upon  what  vou  are  pleased  to  call  moral  evidence.  You  hold  it 
impossible,  that  the  Bible  can  be  the  word  of  God,  because  it  is 
therein  said,  that  the  Israelites  destroyed  the  Canaamtes  by  the  ex¬ 
press  command  of  God;  and  to  believe  the  Bible  to  be  true,  we 
must,  i^ou  affirm,  unbelicve  all  our  belief  of  the  m.oral  jusnee  ot 


108  Watson's  Apology 

God  ;  for  wherein,  you  ask,  could  crying  or  smiling  infants  offend  ? 
u  acute  a  reasoner  should  attempt  to  disparage 

the  Bible,  by  bringing  forward  this  exploded  and  frequently  refuted 
objection  of  Morgan,  Tmdal,  and  Bolingbroke.  You  profess  your- 
seli  to  be  a  deist,  and  to  believe  that  there  is  a  God,  who  created  the 
universe,  and  established  the  laws  of  nature,  by  which  it  is  sus¬ 
tained  in  existence.  You  profess,  that,  from  the  contemplation  of 
the  works  of  God,  you  derive  a  Imowledge  of  his  attributes  ;  and 
you  reject  the  Bible,  because  it  ascribes  to  God  things  inconsistent 
^s  you  suppose)  with  the  attributes  which  you  have  discovered  to 
belong  to  him. ;  in  particular,  you  think  it  repugnant  to  his  moral 
justice,  that  he  should  doom  to  destruction  the  crying  or  smiling  in¬ 
fants  of  the  Canaanites.  Why  do  you  not  maintain  it  to  be  repugnant 
to  his  moral  justice,  that  he  should  sutler  crying  or  smiling  infants 
to  be  swallowed  up  by  an  earthquake,  drowned  by  an  inundation 
consumed  by  a  fire,  starved  by  a  famine,  or  destroyed  by  a  pesti¬ 
lence .  The  word  of  God  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  his  work  • 
crying  or  smiling  infants  are  subjected  to  death  in  both.  We  be¬ 
lieve  that  the  earth,  at  the  express  command  of  God,  opened  her 
mouth,  and  swallowed  up  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  with  their 
wives,  their^  sons,  and  their  little  ones.  '^This  you  esteem  so  repug- 
n^t  to  God  s  moral  justice,  that  you  spurn,  as  spurious,  the  book  in 
which  the  circumstance  is  related.  When  Catania,  Lima,  and  Lis¬ 
bon,  were  severally  destroyed  by  earthquakes,  men  with  their 
wives,  their  sons,  and  their  little  ones,  were  swallowed  up  alive  ■ 
why  do  you  not  spurn,  as  spurious,  the  book  of  nature  in  which  this 
lact  IS  certmnly  wntten,  and  from  the  perusal  of  which  you  infer 

n  ^  Pi'obably,  reply,  that  the  evils, 

which  tlm  Canaanites  suffered  from  the  express  command  of  God, 
were  different  from  those  which  are  brought  on  mankind  by  tlie 
operahon  of  the  laws  of  nature.  Different!  in  what?  Not  in  the 
magnitude  of  ^e  eyil ;  not  in  the  subjects  of  sufferance ;  not  in  the 
authw  of  it ;  for  my  philosophy,  at  least,  instructs  me  to  believe, 
that  God  not  only  prim.arilv  formed,  but  that  he  hath,  through  all 
ages,  executed  the  laws  of  nature ;  and  that  he  will,  through  all 
eternity,  administer  them  for  the  general  happiness  of  his  creatures 
whether  we  can,  on  every  occasion,  discern  that  end  or  not. 

I  am  far  from  being  guilty  of  the  impiety  of  questioning  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  the  moral  justice  of  God,  as  proved  either  by  natural  or  re¬ 
vealed  religion  ;  what  I  contend  for  is  shortly  this  That  you  have 
no  right,  in  fairness  of  reasoning,  to  urge  any  apparent  deviation 
from  moral  justice  as  an  argument  against  revealed  religion,  be¬ 
cause  you  do  not  urge  an  equally  apparent  deviation  from  it  as  an 
argument  against  natural  religion ;  yoai  reject  the  former,  and  admit 
the  latter,  without  adverting,  that,  as  to  your  objection,  they  must 
stand  or  fall  together. 

As  to  the  Canaanites,  it  is  needless  to  enter  into  any  proof  of  the 
depraved  state  of  their  morals ;  they  were  a  wicked  people  in  the 
time  of  Abraham,  and  they,  even  then,  were  devoted  to  destruction 
by  God ;  but  their  iniquity  w»s  not  then  full.  In  the  time  of  Moses, 


109 


for  the  Bible. 

they  were  idolaters,  sacrificers  of  their  own  crying  or  smiling  infants ; 
devourers  of  human  flesh;  addicted  to  unnatural  lust ;  immersed  in 
the  filthiness  of  all  manner  of  vice.  Now,  I  think,  it  will  be  impos¬ 
sible  to  prove,  that  it  was  a  proceeding  contraiy  to  Gods  moral 
justice  to  exterminate  so  wicked  a  people.  He  made  the  Israelites 
the  executors  of  his  vengeance ;  and,  in  doing  this,  he  gave  such  an 
evident  and  terrible  proof  of  his  abomination  of  vice,  as  could  not 
fail  to  strike  the  surrounding  nations  with  astonishment  and  terror, 
and  to  impress  on  the  minds  of  the  Israelites  what  they  weie  to  ex¬ 
pect  if  they  followed  the  example  of  the  nations  whom  he  com¬ 
manded  them  to  cut  off.  “Ye  shall  not  commit  any  of  these  abomi¬ 
nations,  that  the  land  spue  not  you  out  also,  as  it  spued  out  the 
nations  that  w'ere  before  you.”  How  strong  and  descriptive  this 
lanauaae !  The  vices  of  the  inhabitants  were  so  abominable,  that 
the  very  land  was  sick  of  them,  and  forced  to  vomit  them  forth,  as 
the  stomach  disgorges  a  deadly  poison. 

I  have  often  wondered  what  could  be  the  reason,  that  men,  not 
destitute  of  talents,  should  be  desirous  of  undermining  the  authority 
of  revealed  religion,  and  studious  in  exposing,  with  a  malignant 
and  illiberal  exultation,  every  little  difficulty  attending  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  to  popular  animadversion  and  contempt.  I  am  not  willing  to 
attribute  this  strange  propensity  to  what  Plato  attributed  the  atheism 
of  his  time ;  to  profligacy  of  manners  ;  to  affectation  of  singularity ; 
to  gross  ignorance,  assuming  the  semblance  of  deep  research  anil 
superior  sagacity  ;  I  had  rather  refer  it  to  an  impropriety  of  judg¬ 
ment,  respecting  the  manners  and  mental  acquirements  of  human 
Idnd  in  the  first  ages  of  the  world.  Most  unbelievers  argue  as  if 
thev  thought,  that  man,  in  remote  and  rude  antiquity,  in  the  very 
birth  and  infancy  of  our  species,  had  the  same  distinct  conceptions 
of  one  eternal,  invisible,  incorporeal,  infinitely  wise,  powerful,  and 
good  God,  which  they  themselves  have  now.  This  I  look  upon  as 
a  great  mistake,  and  a  pregnant  source  of  infidelity.  Human  kind, 
bv  long  experience,  by  the  institutions  of  civil  society ;  by  the  cut  i- 
vation  of  arts  and  sciences;  by,  as  I  believe.  Divine  instruction  ac- 
tuallv  given  to  some,  and  traditionally  communicated  to  all;  is  m  a 
far  more  distinguished  situation,  as  to  the  powers  of  the  mind,  man 
it  was  in  the  childhood  of  the  world.  The  history  of  man  is  the 
history  of  the  providence  of  God ;  yvho,  willing  the  stipreme  felici  y 
of  all  his  creatures,  has  adapted  his  government  to  the  capacity  oi 
those,  who,  in  different  ages,  were  the  subjects  of  it.  The  history 
of  any  one  nation  throughout  all  ages,  and  that  of  all  nations  in  the 
same  age,  are  but  separate  parts  of  one  great  plan,  winch  God  is 
carrying  on  for  the  moral  melioration  of  mankind.  But  who  can 
comprehend  the  whole  of  this  immense  design?  The  shortness  of 
life,  the  weakness  of  our  faculties,  the  inadequacy  of  our  means  ol 
information,  conspire  to  make  it  impossible  for  us,  worms  ot  the 
earth!  insects  of  an  hour!  completely  to  understand  any  one  ot  its 
parts.  No  man,  who  well  weighs  the  subject,  ought  to  be  surprised, 
that  in  the  histories  of  ancient  times  many  things  should  occur 

K  . 


110 


Waliion'’ii  Apology 

foi’eign  to  our  manners,  the  propriety  and  necessity  of  which  we 
camiot  clearly  apprehend. 

It  appears  incredible  to  many,  that  God  Almighty  should  have 
had  colloquial  intercourse  with  our  first  parents;  that  he  should 
have  contracted  a  kind  of  friendship  for  the  patriarchs,  and  entered 
into  covenants  with  them;  that  he  should  have  suspended  the 
laws  of  nature  in  Egypt ;  should  have  been  so  apparently  partial 
as  to  become  the  God  and  governor  of  one  particular  nation  ;  and 
.should  have  so  far  demeaned  himself  as  to  give  to  that  people  a 
burthensome  ritual  of  worship,  statutes,  and  ordinances,  many  of 
which  seem  to  be  heneath  the  dignity  of  his  attention,  unimportant 
and  impolitic.  I  have  conversed  with  many  deists,  and  have  al¬ 
ways  found,  that  the  strangeness  of  these  things  was  the  only  reason 
for  their  disbelief  of  them  ;  nothing  similar  has  happened  in  their 
lime;  they  will  not,  therefore,  admit  that  these  events  have  really 
taken  place  at  any  time.  As  well  might  a  child,  when  arrived  at  a 
state  of  manhood,  contend,  that  he  had  never  either  stood  in  need 
of  or  experienced  the  fostering  care  of  a  mother’s -kindness,  the 
wearisbme  attention  of  his  nurse,  or  the  instruction  and  discipline 
of  his  schoolmaster.  The  Supreme  Being  selected  one  family  from 
an  idolatrous  world  ;  nursed  it  up,  by  various  acts  of  his  providence, 
into  a  great  nation  ;  communicated  to  that  nation  a  knowledge  of 
his  holiness,  justice,  mercy,  power,  and  wisdom;  disseminated 
them,  at  various  times,  through  every  part  of  the  earth,  that  they 
might  be  a  “  leaven  to  leaven  the  whole  lump,”  that  they  might 
assure  all  other  nations  of  the  existence  of  one  supreme  God,  the 
creator  and  preserver  of  the  world  ;  the  only  proper  object  of  ado¬ 
ration.  With  what  reason  can  we  expect,  that  what  w^as  done  to 
one  nation,  not  out  of  any  partiality  to  them,  but  for  the  general 
goou,  should  be  done  to  all  ?  that  the  mode  of  instruction,  which 
was  suited  to  the  infancy  of  the  world,  should  be  extended  to  the 
maturity  of  its  manhood,  or  to  the  imbecility  of  its  old  age  ?  1  own 
to  you,  that  when  I  consider  how  nearly  man,  in  a  savage  state,  ap¬ 
proaches  to  the  brute  creation,  as  to  intellectual  excellence ;  and 
when  I  contemplate  his  miserable  attainments,  as  to  the  knowledge 
of  God,  in  a  civilized  state,  when  he  has  had  no  divine  instruction 
on  the  subject,  or  when  that  instruction  has  been  forgotten  (for  all 
men  have  known  something  of  God  from  tradition),  1  cannot  but 
admire  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  the  Supreme  Being,  in  having 
let  himself  down  to  our  apprehensions ;  in  having  given  to  man¬ 
kind,  in  the  earliest  ages,  sensible  and  extraordinary  proofs  of  his 
existence  and  attributes;  in  having  made  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
dispensations  mediums  to  convey  to  all  men,  through  all  ages,  that 
knowledge  concerning  himself,  which  he  had  vouchsafed  to  give 
immediately  to  the  first.  I  owm  it  is  strange,  very  strange,  that  he 
should  have  made  an  immediate  manifestation  of  himself  in  the 
first  ages  of  the  wmrld  ;  but  what  is  there  that  is  not  strange  ?  It  is 
strange  that  you  and  I  are  here ;  that  there  is  water,  and  earth,  and 
air,  and  fire ;  that  there  is  a  sun,  and  moon,  and  stare ;  that  there  is 
generation,  corruption,  reproduction.  I  can  account  ultimately  for 


Ill 


for  the  Bible. 

none  of  these  things,  witliout  recurring  to  him  who  made  every 
thing.  I  also  am  Ws  workmanship,  and  look  up  to  him  with  hope 
of  preservation  through  all  eternity ;  I  adore  him  for  his  word  as 
well  as  for  his  work :  his  w'ork  I  cannot  comprehend,  but  his  word 
hath  assured  me  of  all  that  I  am  concerned  to  know ;  that  he  hath 
prepared  everlasting  happiness  for  those  who  love  and  obey  him. 
This  you  wall  call  preachment;  I  wall  have  done  with  it;  but  the 
subject  is  so  vast,  and  the  plan  of  Providence,  in  my  opinion,  so  ob¬ 
viously  wise  and  good,  that  I  can  never  think  of  it  wathout  having 
ray  mind  filled  with  piety,  admiration,  and  gratitude. 

In  addition  to  the  moral  evidence  (as  you  are  pleased  to  think  it) 
against  the  Bible,  you  threaten,  in  the  progress  of  your  work,  to 
produce  such  other  evidence  as  even  a  priest  cannot  deny.  A  phi¬ 
losopher  in  search  of  truth  forfeits  with  me  all  claim  to  candor  and 
impartiality,  when  he  introduces  railing  for  reasoning,  vulgar  and 
illiberal  sarcasm  in  the  room  of  argument.  I  will  not  imitate  the 
example  you  set  me  ;  but  examine  what  you  shall  produce,  with  as 
much  coolness  and  respect,  as  if  you  had  given  the  priests  no  pro¬ 
vocation  ;  as  if  you  were  a  man  of  the  most  unblemished  character, 
subject  to  no  prejudices,  actuated  by  no  bad  designs,  nor  liable  to 
have  abuse  retorted  upon  you  with  success. 


LETTER  n. 

Before  you  commence  your  grand  attack  upon  the  Bible,  you 
W'ish  to  establish  a  difference  between  the  evidence  necessai-y  to 
prove  the  authenticity  of  the  Bible,  and  that  of  any  other  ancient 
nook.  I  am  not  surprised  at  your  anxiety  on  this  head  ;  for  all  wri¬ 
ters  on  the  subject  have  agreed  in  thinking,  that  St.  Austin  reason¬ 
ed  well,  when,  in  vindicating  the  genuineness  of  the  Bible,  he 
asked:  “What  proofs  have  we  that  the  works  of  Plato;  Aristotle, 
Cicero,  Varro,  and  other  profane  authors,  W'ere  wu’itten  by  those 
whose  names  they  bear,  unless  it  be  that  this  has  been  an  opinion 
generally  received  at  all  times,  and  by  all  those  who  have  lived 
since  these  authors?”  This  writer  was  convinced,  that  the  evi¬ 
dence,  which  established  the  genuineness  of  any  profane  book, 
would  establish  that  of  a  sacred  book ;  and  I  profess  myself  to  be 
of  the  same  opinion,  notwithstanding  what  you  have  advanced  to 
the  contrary. 

In  this  part  your  ideas  seem  to  me  to  be  confused  ;  I  do  not  say 
that  you,  designedly.  Jumble  together  mathematical  science  and 
historical  evidence  ;  the  knowledge  acquired  by  demonstration,  and 
the  probability  derived  from  testimony.  You  know  but  of  one  an¬ 
cient  book,  that  authoritatively  challenges  universal  consent  and 
belief,  and  that  is  Euclid’s  Elements.  If  I  were  disposed  to  make 
frivolous  objections,  I  should  say,  that  even  Euclid’s  Elements  had 


112 


Walsoii’s  Apology 

not  met  with  universal  consent ;  that  there  had  been  men,  both  in  ! 
ancient  and  modem  times,  who  had  questioned  the  intuitive  evi¬ 
dence  of  some  of  his  axioms,  and  denied  the  justness  of  some  of 
his  demonstrations :  but,  admitting  the  truth,  I  do  not  see  the  perti¬ 
nency  of  your  observation.  You  are  attempting  to  subvert  the  au¬ 
thenticity  of  the  Bible,  and  you  tell  us  that  Euclid’s  Elements  are 
certainly  true.  What  then?  Does  it  follow  that  the  Bible  is  cer¬ 
tainly  false  ?  The  most  illiterate  scrivener  in  the  kingdom  does  not 
waiit  to  be  informed,  that  the  examples  in  his  Wingate’s  Arithmetic 
are  proved  by  a  different  kind  of  reasoning  from  that  by  which  he 
persuades  himself  to  believe,  that  there  was  such  a  person  as  Henry 
VIII.  or  that  there  is  such  a  city  as  Paris. 

It  may  be  of  use,  to  remove  this  confusion  in  your  argument,  to 
state,  distinctly,  the  difference  between  the  genuineness,  and  the 
authenticity,  of  a  book.  A  genuine  book  is  that  which  was  written 
by  the  person  whose  name  it  bears,  as  the  author  of  it.  An  authen¬ 
tic  book  is  that  which  relates  matters  of  fact,  as  they  really  happen¬ 
ed.  A  book  may  be  genuine,  without  being  authentic ;  and  a  book 
may  be  authentic,  without  being  genuine.  The  books  written  by 
Richardson  and  Fielding  are  genuine  books,  though  the  histories  of 
Clarissa  and  Tom  Jones  are  fables.  The  history  of  the  island  of 
Formosa  is  a  genuine  book;  it  was  written  by  Psalmanazar ;  but  it 
is  not  an  authentic  book  (though  it  was  long  esteemed  as  such,  and 
translated  into  different  languages),  for  the  author,  in  the  latter  part 
of  his  life,  took  shame  to  hhnself  for  having  imposed  on  the  world, ' 
and  confessed  that  it  was  a  mere  romance.  Anson’s  Voyage  may 
be  considered  as  an  authentic,  book,  it,  probably,  containing  a  true 
narration  of  the  principal  events  recorded  in  it ;  but  it  is  net  a  gen¬ 
uine  book,  having  not  been  written  by  Walters,  to  whom  it  is  as¬ 
cribed,  but  by  Robins. 

This  distinction,  betw^een  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  a 
book,  will  assist  us  in  detecting  the  fallacy  of  an  argument,  which 
you  state  with  great  confidence  in  the  part  of  your  work  now  under 
consideration,  and  which  you  frequently  allude  to,  in  other  parts, 
as  conclusive  evidence  against  the  truth  of  the  Bible.  Your  argu¬ 
ment  stands  thus :  if  it  be  found  that  the  books  ascribed  to  Moses, 
Joshua,  and  Samuel,  were  not  written  by  Moses,  Joshua,  and 
Samuel,  every  part  of  the  authority  and  authenticity  of  these  Ixioks 
is  gone  at  once.  I  presume  to  think  otherwise.  The  genuineness 
of  riiese  books  (in  the  judgment  of  those  who  say  that  they  were 
written  by  these  authors) .  will  certainly  be  gone ;  but  their  au¬ 
thenticity  may  remain ;  they  may  still  contain  a  true  account  of 
real  transactions,  though  the  names  of  the  writers  of  them 
should  be  found  to  be  different  from  what  they  are  generally  es¬ 
teemed  to  be. 

Had,  indeed,  Moses  said  that  he  wrote  the  five  first  books  of  the 
Bible  ;  and  had  Joshua  and  Samuel  said  that  they  wrote  the  books 
which  are  respectively  attributed  to  them  ;  and  had  it  been  found, 
that  Moses,  Joshua,  and  Samuel,  did  not  write  these  books ;  then,  I 
grant,  the  authority  of  the  whole  would  have  been  gone  at  once  ; 


113 


for  the  Bible. 

hese  men  would  have  been  found  liars,  as  to  the  genuineness  of 
he  books ;  and  this  proof  of  their  want  of  veracity,  in  one  point, 
A'ould  have  invalidated  their  testimony  in  every  other;  these 
Dooks  would  have  been  justly  stigmatized,  as  neither  genuine  nor 
luthentic. 

A  history  may  be  true,  though  it  should  not  only  be  ascribed  to 
1  wrong  author,  but  though  the  author  of  it  should  not  be  known ; 
inonymous  testimony  does  not  destroy  the  reality  of  facts,  whether 
aatural  or  miraculous.  Had  Lord  Clarendon  published  his  History 
of  the  Rebellion,  without  prefixing  his  name  to  it ;  or  had  the  His¬ 
tory  of  Titus  Livius  come  downi  to  us  under  the  name  of  Valerius 
Flaccus,  or  Valerius  Maximus ;  the  facts  mentioned  in  these  histories 
would  have  been  equally  certain. 

As  to  your  assertion,  that  the  miracles  recorded  in  Tacitus,  and 
in  other  profane  historians,  are  quite  as  .well  authenticated  as  those 
of  the  Bible ;  it  being  a  mere  assertion,  destitute  of  proof,  may  be 
properly  answered  by  a  contrary  assertion.  I  take  the  liberty  then 
to  say,  that  the  evidence  for  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Bible  is, 
both  in  kind  and  degree,  so  greatly  superior  to  that  for  the  prodigies 
mentioned  by  Livy,  or  the  miracles  related  by  Tacitus,  as  to  justify 
us  in  giving  credit  to  the  one  as  the  work  of  God,  and  in  withhold¬ 
ing  it  from  the  other  as  the  effect  of  superstition  and  imposture. 
Tliis  method  of  derogating  from  the  credibility  of  Christianity,  by 
opposing  to  the  miracles  of  our  Saviour  the  tricks  of  ancient  impos¬ 
tors,  seems  to  have  originated  with  Hierocles  in  the  fourth  century  ; 
and  it  has  been  adopted  by  unbelievers  from  that  time  to  this ; 
with  this  difference,  indeed,  that  the  heathens  of  the  third  and 
fourth  century  admitted  that  Jesus  wrought  miracles;  but,  lest 
that  admission  should  have  compelled  them  to  abandon  their  gods 
and  become  Christians,  they  said,  that  their  Apollonius,  their  Apu- 
leius,  their  Aristeas,  did  as  great :  whilst  modern  deists  deny  the 
fact  of  Jesus  having  ever  wrought  a  miracle.  And  they  have  some 
reason  for  this  proceeding ;  •  they  are  sensible,  that  the  Gospel  mira¬ 
cles  are  so  different,  in  all  their  circumstances,  from  those  related 
in  Pagan  story,  that,  if  they  admit  them  to  have  been  performed, 
they  must  admit  Christianity  to  be  true ;  lienee  they  have  fabricated 
a  kind  of  deistical  axiom ;  that  no  human  testimony  can  establish 
the  credibility  of  a  miracle.  This,  though  it  has  been  a  hundred 
times  refuted,  is  still  insisted  upon,  as  if  its  truth  had  never  been 
questioned,  and  could  not  be  disproved. 

You  “  proceed  to  examine  the  authenticity  of  the  Bible ;  and  you 
begin,  you  s^,  ivith  what  are  called  the  five  books  of  Moses ;  Gene¬ 
sis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  and  Deuteronomy.  Your  intention, 
you  profess,  is  to  show  that  these  books  are  spurious,  and  that  Moses 
is  not  the  author  of  them ;  and  still  farther,  that  they  were  not 
written  in  the  time  of  Moses,  nor  till  several  hundred  years  after¬ 
wards;  that  they  are  no  other  than  an  attempted  history  of  the 
life  of  Moses,  and  of  the  times  in  which  he  is  said  to  have  lived,  and 
also  of  the  times  prior  thereto,  written  by  some  very  ignorant  and 
stupid  pretender  to  authorship,  several  hundred  years  after  the  death 
K  2 


114 


Watson’s  Apology 

of  Moses.”  In  this  passage  the  utmost  force  of  your  attack  on  the 
authority  of  the  five  books  of  Moses  is  clearly  stated.  You  are  not 
the  first  who  has  started  this  difficulty ;  it  is  a  difficulty,  indeed,  of 
modern  date ;  having  not  been  heard  of,  either  in  the  synagogue,  or 
out  of  it,  till  the  twelfth  century.  About  that  time  Aben  Ezra,  a 
Jew  of  great  erudition,  noticed  some  passages  (the  same  that  you 
have  brought  forward)  in  the  five  first  books  of  the  Bible,  which  he 
thought  had  not  been  written  by  Moses,  but  inserted  by  some  person 
after  the  death  of  Moses.  But  he  was  far  from  maintaining,  as  you 
do,  that  these  books  were  written  by  some  ignorant  and  stupid  pre¬ 
tender  to  authorship,  many  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  Moses. 
Hobbes  contends,  that  the  books  of  Moses  are  so  called,  not  from 
their  having  been  written  by  Moses,  but  from  their  containing  an 
account  of  Moses.  Spinoza  supported  the  same  opinion;  and  Le 
Clerc,  a  very  able  theological  critic  of  the  last  and  present  century, 
once  entertained  the  same  notion.  You  see  that  this  fancy  has  had 
some  patrons  before  you ;  the  merit  or  the  demerit,  the  sagacity  or 
the  temerity  of  having  asserted,  that  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch,  is  not  exclusively  yours.  Le  Clerc,  indeed,  you  must 
not  boast  of  When  his  judgment  was  matured  by  age,  he  was 
ashamed  of  what  he  had  WTitten  on  the  subject  in  his  younger 
years ;  he  made  a  public  recantation  of  his  error,  by  annexing  to 
his  commentary  on  Genesis  a  Latin  dissertation,  concerning  Moses, 
the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  his  design  in  composing  it.  If  in 
your  future  life  you  should  chance  to  change  your  opinion  on  the 
subject,  it  will  be  an  honor  to  your  character  to  emulate  the  integ¬ 
rity,  and  to  imitate  the  example  of  Le  Clerc.  The  Bible  is  not  the 
only  book  which  has  undergone  the  fate  of  being  reprobated  as 
spurious,  after  it  had  been  received  as  genuine  and  authentic  for 
many  ages.  It  has  been  maintained,  that  the  history  of  Herodotus 
was  written  in  the  time  of  Constantine ;  and  that  the  classics  are 
forgeries  of  the  thirteenth  or  fourteenth  century.  These  extrava 
gant  reveries  amused  the  world  at  the  time  of  their  publication,  and 
have  long  since  sunk  into  oblivion.  You  esteem  all  prophets  to  be 
such  lying  rascals,  that  I  dare  not  venture  to  predict  the  fate  of  your 
book. 

Before  you  produce  your  main  objections  to  the  genuineness  of 
the  books  of  Moses,  you  assert,  “  that  there  is  no  affirmative  evidence 
that  Moses  is  the  author  of  them.”  What !  no  affirmative  evidence ! 
In  the  eleventh  century  Maimonides  drew  up  a  confession  of  faith 
for  the  Jews,  which  all  of  them  at  this  day  admit;  it  consists  of 
only  thirteen  articles ;  and  two  of  them  have  respect  to  Moses ;  one 
affirming  the  authenticity,  the  other  the  genuineness  of  his  books 
The  doctrine  and  prophecy  of  Moses  is  true.  The  law  that  we 
have  was  given  by  Moses.  This  is  the  faith  of  the  Jews  at  present 
and  has  been  their  faith  ever  since  the  destruction  of  their  city  anc 
temple  ;  it  was  their  faith  in  the  time  when  the  authors  of  the  New 
Testament  wrote  ;  it  was  their  faith  during  their  captivity  in  Baby 
Ion  ;  in  the  time  of  their  kings  and  judges ;  and  no  period  can  bf 
shown,  from  the  age  of  Moses  to  the  present  hour,  in  which  it  was 


115 


for  the  Bible. 

not  their  faith.  Is  this  no  affirmative  evidence?  I  cannot  desire  a 
stronger.  Josephus,  in  his  book  against  Apion,  writes  thus;  “We 
have  only  two  and  twenty  books  which  are  to  be  believed  as  of 
divine  authority,  and  which  comprehend  the  histoiy  of  all  ages: 
five  belong  to  Moses,  which  contain  the  original  of  man,  and  the 
tradition  of  the  succession  of  generations,  down  to  his  death,  which 
takes  in  a  compass  of  about  three  thousand  years.”  Do  you  consider 
this  as  no  affirmative  evidence?  Why  should  I  mention  Juvenal 
speaking  of  the  volume  which  Moses  has  written  ?  Why  enumerate 
a  long  list  of  profane  authors,  all  bearing  testimony  to  the  fact  of 
Moses  being  the  leader  and  the  lawgiver  of  the  Jewish  nation ;  and 
if  a  lawgiver,  surely  a  writer  of  the  laws.  But  what  says  the  Bible  ? 
In  Exodus  it  says,  “  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  the  Lord,'.q.nd 
took  the  book  of  the  covenant,  and  read  in  the  audience  of  the 
people.”  In  Deuteronomy  it  says,  “  And  it  came  to  pap,  when  Moses 
had  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book,  imtil 
they  were  finished  (this  surely  imports  the  finishing  a  laborious 
work),  that  Moses  commanded  the  Levites,  which  bare  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  saying.  Take  this  book  of  the  law,  and 
put  it  in  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  your  God, 
that  it  may  be  there  for  a  witness  against  thee.”  This  is  said  in 
Deuteronomy,  which  is  land  of  repetition  or  abridgment  of  the  four 
preceding  books;  and  it  is  well  known,  that  the  Jews  gave  the 
name  of  the  Law  to  the  first  five  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
What  possible  doubt  can  there  be  that  Moses  wrote  the  books  in 
question  ?  I  could  accumulate  many  other  passages  from  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  to  this  purpose ;  but  if  what  I  have  advanced  will  not  con¬ 
vince  you  that  there  is  affirmative  evidence,  and  of  the  strongest 
kind,  for  Moses’s  being  the  author  of  these  books,  nothing  that  I  can 
advance  wdll  convince  you. 

What  if  I  should  grant  all  you  undertake  to  prove  (the  stupidity 
and  ignorance  of  the  writer  excepted)?  What  if  !  should  admit,  that 
Samuel,  or  Ezra,  or  some  other  learned  Jew,  composed  these  books, 
from  public  records,  many  years  after  the  death  of  Moses  ?  Will  it 
follow  that  there  was  no  truth  in  them  ?  According  to  my  logic,  it 
will  only  follow,  that  they  are  not  genuine  books ;  every  fact  re¬ 
corded  in  them  may  be  true,  whenever,  or  by  whomsoever  they 
were  written.  It  cannot  be  said  that  the  Jews  had  no  public  records ; 
the  Bible  furnishes  abundance  of  proof  to  the  contrary.  I  by  no 
means  admit,  that  these  books,  as  to  the  main  part  of  them,  -were 
not  written  by  Moses ;  but  I  do  contend,  that  a  book  may  contain  a 
true  history,  though  we  Imow  not  the  author  of  it ;  or  though  we 
may  be  mistaken  in  ascribing  it  to  a  wrong  author. 

The  first  argument  you  produce  against  Moses  being  the  author 
of  these  books  is  so  old,  that  I  do  not  know  its  original  author  ;  and 
it  is  so  miserable  a  one,  that  I  wonder  you  should  adopt  it.  “  These 
books  cannot  be  written  by  Moses,  because  they  are  wrote  in  the 
third  person ;  it  is  always,  'The  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  or  Moses  said 
unto  the  Lord.  This,”  you  say,  “  is  the  style  and  manner  that  his¬ 
torians  use  in  speaking  of  the  person  whose  lives  and  actions  they 


116 


Watson'^s  Apology 

are  writing.”  This  observation  is  true,  but  it  does  not  extend  far  ' 
enough ;  for  this  is  the  style  and  manner,  not  only  of  historians 
writing  of  other  persons,  but  of  eminent  men,  such  as  Xenophon  i 
and  Josephus,  writing  of  themselves.  If  General  Washington  should 
write  the  history  of  the  American  war,  and  should,  from  his  great 
modesty,  speak  of  himself  in  the  third  person,  would  you  think  it  I 
reasonable,  that,  two  or  three  thousand  years  hence,  any  person  ' 
should,  on  that  account,  contend,  that  the  history  was  not  true?  ; 
C^sar  writes  of  himself  in  the  third  person:  it  is  always,  Caesar  made  | 
a  speech,  or  a  speech  was  made  to  Caesar,  C®sar  crossed  the  Rhine,  | 
Caesar  invaded  Britain ;  but  every  schoolboy  knows,  that  this  circum-  ' 
sta,nce  cannot  be  adduced  as  a  serious  argument  against  Caesar's 
being  the  author  of  his  own  Commentaries. 

But  Moses,  you  urge,  cannot  be  the  author  of  the  book  of  Num¬ 
bers,  because  he  says  of  himself,  “that  Moses  was  a  very  meek 
man,  above  all  the  men  that  were  on  the  face  of  the  earth.”  If  he 
said  this  of  himself,  he  was,  you  say,  “  a  vain  and  arrogant  cox¬ 
comb  (such  is  your  phrase !),  and  unworthy  of  credit ;  and  if  he  did 
not  say  it,  the  books  are  without  authority.”  This  your  dilemma  is 
perfectly  harmless  ;  it  has  not  a  horn  to  hurt  the  weakest  logician. 

If  Moses  did  not  write  this  little  verse,  if  it  was  inserted  by  Samuel, 
or  any  of  his  countrymen,  who  knew  his  character  and  revered  his 
memory,  will  it  follow  that  he  did  not  write  any  other  part  of  the 
book  of  Numbers  ?  Or  if  he  did  not  write  any  part  of  the  book  of 
Numbers,  will  it  follow  that  he  did  not  write  any  of  the  other  books 
of  which  he  is  usually  reputed  the  author  ?  And  if  he  did  write 
this  of  himself,  he  was  justified  by  the  occasion  which  extorted 
from  him  this  commendation.  Had  this  expression  been  Avritten  in 
a  modern  style  and  manner,  it  would  probably  have  given  you  no 
offence.  For  who  would  be  so  fastidious  as  to  find  fault  with  an 
illustrious  man,  who  being  calumniated  by  his  nearest  relations,  as 
guilty  of  pride  and  fond  of  power,  should  vindicate  his  character  by 
saying,  my  temper  was  naturally  as  meek  and  unassuming  as  that 
of  any  man  upon  earth  ?  There  are  occasions,  in  which  a  modest 
man,  who  speaks  truly,  may  speak  proudly  of  himself,  without  for¬ 
feiting  his  general  character ;  and  there  is  no  occasion,  which  either 
more  requires,  or  more  excuses  this  conduct,  than  when  he  is  re¬ 
pelling  the  foul  and  envious  aspersions  of  those,  who  both  knew  his 
character  and  had  experienced  his  kindness :  and  in  that  predica¬ 
ment  stood  Aaron  and  Miriam,  the  accusers  of  Moses.  You  your¬ 
self  have,  probably,  felt  the  sting  of  calumny,  and  have  been 
anxious  to  remove  the  impression.  I  do  not  call  you  a  vain  and  ar¬ 
rogant  coxcomb  for  vindicating  your  character,  when  in  the  latter 
part  of  this  very  work  you  boast,  and  I  hope  truly,  “that  the  man  ' 
does  not  exists  that  can  say  I  have  persecuted  him,  or  any  man,  or 
any  set  of  men,  in  the  American  revolution,  or  in  the  French  revo¬ 
lution;  or  that  I  have  in  any  case  returned  evil  for  evil.”  I  know 
not  what  kings  and  priests  may  say  to  this ;  you  may  not  have  re¬ 
turned  to  them  evil  for  evil,  because  they  never,  I  believe,  did  you 


for  the  Bible.  117 

any  harm ;  but  you  have  done  them  all  the  harm  you  could,  and 
that  without  provocation. 

1  think  it  needless  to  notice  your  observation  upon  what  you  call 
the  dramatic  style  of  Deuteronomy ;  it  is  an  ill-founded  hypothesis. 
You  might  as  well  ask  where  the  author  of  Caesar’s  Commentaries 
got  the  speeches  of  Caesar,  as  where  the  author  of  Deuteronomy 
got  the  speeches  of  Moses.  But  your  argument,  that  Moses  was  not 
the  author  of  Deuteronomy,  because  the  reason  given  in  that  book 
for  the  observation  of  the  sabbath  is  different  from  that  given  in 
Exodus,  merits  a  reply. 

You  need  not  be  told,  that  the  very  name  of  this  book  imports,  m 
Greek,  a  repetition  of  a  law ;  and  that  the  Hebrew  doctors  have 
called  it  by  a  word  of  the  same  meaning.  In  the  fifth  verse  of  the 
first  chapter,  it  is  said  in  our  Bibles,  “  Moses  began  to  declare  this 
law;”  but  the  Hebrew' words,  more  properly  translated,  import,  that 
Moses  “  began,  or  determined,  to  explain  the  law.”  This  is  no  shift 
of  mine  to  get  over  a  difficulty ;  the  words  are  so  rendered  in  most 
of  the  ancient  versions,  and  by  E agius,  V etablus,  and  Le  Clerc,  men 
eminently  skilled  in  the  Elebrew  language.  This  repetition  and 
explanation  of  the  law  was  a  wise  and  benevolent  proceeding  in 
Moses ;  that  those  who  were  either  not  born,  or  were  mere  infants, 
when  it  was  first  (forty  years  before)  delivered  in  Horeb,  might 
have  an  opportunity  of  knowing  it ;  especially  as  Moses  their  leader 
was  soon  to  be  taken  from  them,  and  they  were  about  to  be  settled 
in  the  midst  of  nations  given  to  idolatry  and  sunk  in  vice.  Kow 
where  is  the  wonder,  that  some  variations,  and  some  additions, 
should  he  made  to  a  law,  w'hen  a  legislator  thinks  fit  to  republish  it 
many  years  after  its  first  promulgation  ?  .  . 

With  respect  to  the  sabbath,  the  learned  are  divided  in  opinion 
concerning  its  Origin ;  some  contending  that  it  was  sanctified  iTom 
the  creation  of  the  wnrld ;  that  it  W'as  observed  by  the  patriarchs 
before  the  flood  ;  that  it  was  neglected  by  the  Israelites  during  their 
bondage  in  Egypt ;  revived  on  the  falling  of  manna  in  the  wilder¬ 
ness;  and  enjoined,  as  a  positive  law,  at  Mount  Sinai.  Otheis 
esteem  its  institution  to  have  been  no  older  than  the  age  of  Moses , 
and  argue,  that  w'hat  is  said  of  the  sanctification  of  the  sabbath  in 
the  book  of  Genesis,  is  said  by  way  of  anticipation.  T.  here  may  be 
truth  in  both  these  accounts.  To  me  it  is  probable,  that  the  memory 
of  the  creation  was  handed  dowm  from  Adam  to  all  his  posterity ; 
and  that  the  seventh  day  was,  for  a  long  time,  held  sacred  by  all 
nations  in  commemoration  of  that  event;  but  that  the  peculiar 
rigidness  of  its  observance  was  enjoined  by  Moses  to  the  Israelites 
alone.  As  to  there  being  tw'o  reasons  given  for  its  being  kept  holy- 
one,  that  on  that  day  God  rested  from  the  work  of  creation-— the 
other,  that  on  that  day  God  had  given  them  rest  from  the  servitude 
of  Egypt — I  see  no  contradiction  in  the  accounts.  If  a  rnan,  in 
writing  the  history  of  England,  should  inform  his  readers,  that  me 
parliament  had  ordered  the  5th  of  November  to  be  kept  holy,  be¬ 
cause  on  that  day  God  had  delivered  the  nation  from  a  bloody- 
intended  massacre  by  gunpowder ;  and  if,  in  another  part  of  his 


118  Watsori’s  Apology 

history,  he  should  assign  the  deliverance  of  our  church  and  nation 
from  popery  and  arbitrary  power,  by  the  arrival  of  King  William, 
as  a  reason  for  its  being  kept  holy ;  would  any  one  contend,  that  he  s 
was  not  justified  in  both  these  ways  of  expression,  or  that  we  ought  : 
from  thence  to  conclude  that  he  was  not  the  author  of  them  both  ? 

You  think  “that  law  in  De\iteronomy  inhuman  and  brutal,  which 
authorizes  parents,  the  father  and  the  mother,  to  bring  their  owm 
children  to  have  them  stoned  to  death  for  what  it  is  pleased  to  call 
stubbornness.”  You  are  aware,  I  suppose,  that  paternal  power 
amongst  the  Romans,  the  Gauls,  the  Persians,  and  other  nations,  j 
was  of  the  most  arbitrary  kind ;  that  it  extended  to  the  taking  away  i 
the  life  of  the  child.  I  do  not  know  whether  the  Israelites  in  the 
time  of  Moses  exercised  this  paternal  power ;  it  was  not  a  custom 
adopted  by  all  nations,  but  it  was  by  many ;  and  in  the  infancy  of 
society,  before  individual  families  had  coalesced  into  communities, 
it  was  probably  very  general.  Now  Moses,  by  this  law,  which  you 
esteem  brutal  and  inhuman,  hindered  such  an  extravagant  power 
from  being  either  introduced  or  exercised  amongst  the  Israelites. 
This  law  is  so  far  from  countenancing  the  arbitrary  power  of  a 
father  over  the  life  of  Ins  child,  that  it  takes  from  him  the  power  of 
accusing  the  child  before  a  magistrate ;  the  father  and  the  mother 
of  the  child  must  agree  in  bringing  the  child  to  judgment ;  and  it  is 
not  by  their  united  will  that  the  child  was  to  be  condemned  to 
death ;  the  elders  of  the  city  were  to  judge  whether  the  accusation 
was  true ;  and  the  accusation  was  to  be,  not  merely,  as  you  in- 
sinuate,  that  the  child  was  stubborn,  but  that  he  was  “  stubborn  and 
rebellious,  a  glutton  and  a  drunkard.”  Considered  in  this  light,  you 
must  allow  the  law  to  have  been  a  humane  restriction  of  a  power 
improper  to  be  lodged  wfith  any  parent. 

That  you  may  abuse  the  priests,  you  abandon  your  subject^ — 

“  priests  (you  say)  preach  up  Deuteronomy,  for  Deuteronomy  preaches 
up  tithes.”  I  do  not  know  that  priests  preach  up  Deuteronomy 
more  tlian  they  preach  up  other  books  of  Scripture;  but  I  do 
know  that  tithes  are  not  preached  up  in  Deuteronomy  more  than  in 
Leviticus,  in  Numbers,  in  Chronicles,  in  Malachi,  in  the  law,  the 
history,  and  the  prophets  of  the  Jewish  nation.  You  go  on,  “it  is 
from  this  book,  chap,  xxv,  ver.  4,  they  have  taken  the  phrase  and 
applied  it  to  tithing,  ‘  thou  shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox  when  he  treadeth 
out  the  corn and  that  this  might  not  escape  observation,  they  have, 
noted  it  in  the  table  of  contents  at  the  head  of  the  chapter,  though 
it  is  only  a  single  verse  of  less  than  two  lines.  O  priests!  priests! 
ye  are  willing  to  be  compared  to  an  ox  for  the  sake  of  tithes!”  I 
cannot  call  this  reasoning,  and  I  will  not  pollute  my  page  by  giving 
it  a  proper  appellation.  Had  the  table  of  contents,  instead  of  sim-, 
ply  saying,  the  ox  is  not  to  be  muzzled,  said,  tithes  enjoined,  or 
priests  to  be  maintained,  there  would  have  been  a  little  ground  for 
your  censure.  Whoever  noted  this  phrase  at  the  head  of  the  chap¬ 
ter  had  better  reason  for  doing  it  than  you  have  attributed  to  them. 

They  did  it,  because  St.  Paul  had  quoted  it,  when  he  wms  proving 
to  the  Corinthians,  that  they  w’ho  preached  the  Gospel  had  a  right 


for  the  Bible.  119 

to  live  by  the  Gospel ;  it  was  Paul,  and  not  the  priests,  who  first 
apphed  &is  phrase  to  tithing.  St.  Paul,  indeed,  did  not  avail  him¬ 
self  of  the  right  he  contended  for ;  he  was  not,  therefore,  interested 
in  what  he  said.  The  reason  on  which  he  grounds  the  right,  is  not 
merely  this  quotation  which  you  ridicule  ;  nor  the  appointment  of 
the  law  of  Moses,  which  you  think  fabulous ;  nor  the  injunction  of 
Jesus,  which  you  despise ;  no,  it  is  a  reason  founded  in  the  nature 
of  things,  and  which  no  pliilosopher,  no  unbeliever,  no  man  of  com¬ 
mon  sense  can  deny  to  be  a  solid  reason ;  it  amounts  to  this,  that 
the  lalwrer  is  worthy  of  his  hire.”  Nothing  is  so  much  a  man’s 
own  os  his  labor  and  ingenuity ;  and  it  is  entirely  consonant  to  the 
law  of  nature,  that  by  the  innocent  use  of  these  he  should  provide 
for  his  subsistence.  Husbandmen,  artists,  soldiers,  physicians,  law¬ 
yers,  all  let  out  their  labor  and  talents  for  a  stipulated  reward: 
why  may  not  a  priest  do  the  same?  Some  accounts  of  you  have 
been  published  in  England ;  but,  conceiving  them  to  have  proceeded 
from  a  design  to  injure  your  character,  I  never  read  them.  I  know 
nothing  of  vour  parentage,  your  education,  or  condition  in  life.  You 
may  have  been  elevated  by  your  birth  above  the  necessity  of  ac- 
quinng  the  means  of  sustaining  life  by  the  labor  of  either  hand  or 
head:  if  this  be  the  case,  you  ought  not  to  despise  those  wdio  have 
come  into  the  world  in  less  favorable  circumstances.  If  your  origin 
has  been  less  fortunate,  you  must  have  supported  yourself,  either  by 
manual  labor,  or  the  exercise  of  your  genius.  Why  should  you 
Imnk  that  conduct  disreputable  in  priests,  which  you  probably  con¬ 
sider  as  laudable  in  yourself?  I  know  not  whether  you  have  not  as 
pat  a  dislike  of  kings  as  of  priests  :  but,  that  you  may  be  induced 
to  think  more  favorably  of  men  of  my  profession,  I  will  just  men- 
tion  to  you,  that  the  payment  of  tithes  is  no  new  institution,  but 
pt  they  w'ere  paid  in  the  most  ancient  times,  not  to  priests  only, 
but  tpin^.  I  could  give  you  a  hundred  instances  of  this:  tAvo 
may  be  sufficient.  Abraham  paid  tithes  to  the  king  of  Salem,  four 
hundred  years  before  the  law  of  Moses  was  given.  The  king  of 
alem  was  ppst  also  of  the  most  high  God.  Priests,  you  see,  existed 
m  the  world,  and  were  held  in  high  estimation,  for  kings  w'ere 
priest^  long  before  the  impostures,  as  you  esteem  them,  of  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations  were  heard  of  But  as  this  in¬ 
stance  IS  taken  from  a  book  which  you  call  “a  book  of  contradic¬ 
tions  and  lies” — the  Bible,  I  will  give  you  another,  from  a  book,  to 
which,  as  it  is  written  by  a  profane  author,  you 
probably  will  not  object.  Diogenes  Leartius,  in  his  Life  of  Solon, 
cites  a  letter  of  Pisistratus  to  that  lawgiver,  in  which  he  says,  “  I, 
risistratus,  the  tyrant,  am  contented  with  the  stipends  which  were 
paid  to  those  who  reigned  before  me ;  the  people  of  Athens  set 
apwt  a  tenth  of  the  fruits  of  their  land,  not  for  my  private  use,  but 
to  be  expended  in  the  public  sacrifices,  and  for  the  general  good.” 


120 


Watson’s  Apology 


LETTER  III. 

Having  done  with  what  you  call  the  grammatical  evidence  that 
Moses  was  not  the  author  of  the  books  attributed  to  him,  you  come 
to  your  historical  and  chronological  evidence  ;  and  you  begin  with 
Genesis.  Your  first  argument  is  taken  from  the  single  word  Dan 
being  fSund  in  Genesis,  when  it  appeai-s  from  the  book  of  Judges, 
that  the  town  of  Laish  Avas  not  called  Dan  till  above  three  hundred 
and  thirty  years  after  the  death  of  Moses ;  therefore,  the  writ^ 
of  Genesis,  you  conclude,  must  have  lived  after  the  town  of  Laish 
had  the  name  of  Dan  given  to  it.  Lest  this  objection  should  not 
be  obvious  enough  to  a  common  capacity,  you  illustrate  it  in  the 
following  manner :  “  Havre-de-Grace  was  called  Havre-Marat  in 
1793;  should  then  any  dateless  writing  be  found,  in  after  times, 
with  the  name  of  Havre-Marat,  it  would  be  certain  evidence  that 
such  a  writing  could  not  have  been  written  till  after  the  year  1793.” 
This  is  a  WTong  conclusion.  Suppose  some  hot  republican  should 
at  this  day  publish  a  new  edition  of  any  old  history  of  France,  and 
instead  of  Havre-de-Grace  should  write  Havre-Marat ;  and  that 
two  or  three  thousand  years  hence  a  man,  like  yourself,  should,  on 
that  account,  reject  the  whole  history  as  spurious,  would  he  be  jus¬ 
tified  in  so  doing?  Would  it  not  be  reasonable  to  tell  him,  that  the 
name  Havre-Marat  had  been  inserted,  not  by  the  original  author 
of  the  history,  but  by  a  subsequent  editor  of  it;  and  to  refer  him, 
for  a  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  book,  to  the  testimony  of  the 
whole  French  nation?  This  supposition  so  obviously  applies  to 
your  difficulty,  that  I  cannot  but  recommend  it  to  your  impartial  at¬ 
tention.  But  if  this  solution  does  not  please  you,  I  desire  it  may  be 
proved,  that  the  Dan,  mentioned  in  Genesis,  was  the  same  town  as 
the  Dan,  mentioned  in  Judges.  I  desire,  farther,  to  have  it  proved, 
that  the  Dan,  mentioned  in  Genesis,  was  the  name  of  a  town,  and 
not  of  a  river.  It  is  merely  said,  Abram  pursued  them,  the  enemies 
of  Lot,  to  Dan.  Now  a  river  was  full  as  likely  as  a  town  to  stop 
a  pursuit.  Lot,  we  know,  was  settled  in  the  plain  of  Jordan  ,*  and 
Jordan,  we  know,  was  composed  of  the  united  streams  of  two 
rivers,  called  Jor  and  Dan. 

Your  next  difficulty  respects  its  being  said  in  Genesis,  “  These 
are  the  kings  that  reigned  in  Edam  before  there  reigned  any  king 
over  the  children  of  Israel :  this  passage  could  only  have  been 
written,  you  say  (and  I  think  you  say  rightly),  after  the  first  king 
began  to  reign  over  Israel ;  so  far  frorn  being  written  by  Moses,  it 
could  not  have  been  written  till  the  time  of  Saul  at  the  least.”  I 
admit  this  inference,  but  I  deny  its  application.  A  small  addition 
to  a  book  does  not  destroy  either  the  genuineness  or  the  authenticity 
of  the  whole  book.  I  am  not  ignorant  of  the  manner  in  which 
commentators  have  answered  this  objection  of  Spinoza,  without 
making  the  concessions  which  I  have  made  ;  but  I  have  no  scruple 
in  admitting,  that  the  passage  in  question,  consisting  of  nine  verees 


for  the  Bible.  121 

containing  the  genealogy  of  some  kings  of  Edom,  might  have  been 
inserted  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  after  the  book  of  Chronicles  (which 
was  called  in  Greek  by  a  name  importing  that  it  contained  things 
left  out  in  other  books)  was  written.  The  learned  have  shown, 
that  interpolations  have  happened  to  other  books  j  but  these  inser¬ 
tions  bv  other  hands  have  never  been  considered  as  invalidating 
the  authority  of  those  books. 

“Take  away  from  Genesis,”  you  say,  “the  belief  that  Moses 
was  the  author,  on  which  only  the  strange  belief  that  it  is  the  word 
of  God  has  stood,  and  there  remains  nothing  of  Genesis  but  an 
anonymous  book  of  stories,  fables,  traditionary  or  invented  absurdi¬ 
ties,  or  of  downright  lies.” — What !  is  it  a  story  then,  that  the  world 
had  a  begiiming,  and  that  the  author  of  it  was  God  ?  If  you  deem 
this  a  story,  I  am  not  disputing  with  a  deistical  philosopher,  but 
with  an  atheistic  madman.  Is  it  a  story,  that  our  first  parents  fell 
from  a  paradisiacal  state ;  that  this  earth  was  destroyed  by  a  deluge ; 
that  Noah  and  his  family  were  preserved  in  the  ark,  and  that  the 
world  has  been  repeopled  by  his  descendants?  Look  into  a  book 
so  common,  that  almost  eve^  body  has  it,  and  so  excellent  that  no 
person  ought  to  be  without  it — Grotius  on  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
religion,  and  you  will  there  meet  with  abundant  testimony  to  the 
truth  of  all  the  principal  facts  recorded  in  Genesis.  The  testimony 
is  not  that  of  Jews,  Christians,  and  priests ;  it  is  the  testimony  of  the 
philosophers,  historians,  and  poets  of  antiquity.  The  oldest  book 
in  the  world  is  Genesis;  and  it  is  remarkable,  that  those  books, 
which  come  nearest  to  it  in  age,  are  those  which  make,  either  the 
most  distinct  mention,  or  the  most  evident  allusion  to  the  facts  re¬ 
lated  in  Genesis,  concerning  the  formation  of  the  world  from  a 
chaotic  mass,  the  primeval  innocence  and  subsequent  fall  of  man, 
the  longevity  of  mankind  in  the  first  ages  of  the  world,  the  depravi¬ 
ty  of  the  antediluvians,  and  the  destruction  of  the  world.  Read 
the  tenth  chapter  of  Genesis.  It  may  appear  to  you  to  contain  no¬ 
thing  but  an  uninteresting  narrative  of  the  descendants  of  Shem, 
Ham,  and  Japheth;  a  mere  fable,  an  invented  absurdity,  a  down¬ 
right  lie.  No,  sir,  it  is  one  of  the  most  valuable,  and  the  most  ven¬ 
erable  records  of  antiquity.  It  explains  what  all  profane  historians 
were  ignorant  of — the  origin  of  nations.  Had  it  told  us,  as  other 
books  do,  that  one  nation  had  sprung  out  of  the  earth  they  inhabit¬ 
ed  ;  another  from  a  cricket  or  a  grasshopper ;  another  from  an 
oak ;  another  from  a  mushroom ;  another  from  a  dragon’s  tooth  ; 
then,  indeed,  it  would  have  merited  the  appellation  you,  with  so 
much  temerity,  bestow  upon  it.  Instead  of  these  absurdities,  it 
gives  such  an  account  of  the  peopling  the  earth  after  the  deluge 
as  no  other  book  in  the  world  ever  did  give ;  and  the  truth  of  which 
ail  other  books  in  the  world,  which  contain  any  thing  on  the  subject, 
confirm.  The  last  verse  of  the  chapter  says,  “  These  are  the  fami¬ 
lies  of  the  sons  of  Noah,  after  their  generations,  in  their  nations ; 
and  by  these  were  the  nations  divided  in  the  earth,  after  the  flood.” 
It  would  require  great  learning  to  trace  out,  precisely,  either  the 
actual  situation  of  all  the  countries  in  which  these  founders  of  em» 
L 


122  Watson^ s  Apology 

pires  settled,  or  to  ascertain  the  extent  of  their  dominions.  This,  1 
however,  has  been  done  by  various  authors,  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  | 
competent  judges ;  so  much,  at  least,  to  my  satisfaction,  that  had  I  I 
no  other  proof  of  the  authenticity  of  Genesis.  I  should  consider  this 
as  sufiicient.  But,  without  the  aid  of  learning,  any  man  who  can 
barely  read  his  Bible,  and  has  but  heard  of  such  people  as  the  As¬ 
syrians,  the  Elamites,  the  Lydians,  the  Medes,  the  lonians,  the 
Tliracians,  will  readily  acknowledge,  that  they  had  Assur,  and  i 
Elam,  and  Lud,  and  Madai,  and  Javan,  and  Tiras,  grandsons  of 
Noah,  for  their  respective  founders ;  and  knowing  this,  he  will  not, 

I  hope,  part  with  his  Bible,  as  a  system  of  fables.  I  am  no  enemy 
to  philosophy ;  but  when  philosophy  would  rob  me  of  my  Bible,  I 
must  say  of  it,  as  Cicero  said  of  the  twelve  tables,  this  little  book 
alone  exceeds  the  libraries  of  all  the  philosophers  in  the  weight  of 
its  authority,  and  in  the  extent  of  its  utility. 

From  the  abuse  of  the  Bible  you  proceed  to  that  of  Moses,  and 
again  bring  forward  the  subject  of  his  wars  in  the  land  of  Canaan. 
There  are  many  men  who  look  upon  all  war  (would  to  God  that  all 
men  saw  it  in  the  same  light!)  with  extreme  abhorrence,  as  afflict¬ 
ing  mankind  with  calamities  not  necessary,  shocking  to  humanity, 
and  repugnant  to  reason.  But  is  it  repugnant  to  reason,  that  God 
should,  by  an  express  act  of  his  providence,  destroy  a  wicked  na¬ 
tion  ?  I  am  fond  of  considering  the  goodness  of  God  as  the  leading 
principle  of  his  conduct  towards  mankind,  of  considering  his  justice 
as  subservient  to  his  mercy.  He  punishes  individuals  and  nations 
with  the  rod  of  his  wrath ;  but  I  am  persuaded  that  all  his  punish¬ 
ments  originate  in  his  abhorrence  of  sin ;  are  calculated  to  lessen 
its  influence  ;  and  are  proofs  of  his  goodness ;  inasmuch  as  it  may 
not  be  possible  for  Omnipotence  itself  to  communicate  supreme  hap¬ 
piness  to  the  human  race,  whilst  they  continue  servants  of  sin. 
The  destruction  of  the  Canaanites  exhibits  to  all  nations,  in  all  ages, 
a  signal  proof  of  God’s  displeasure  against  sin  ;  it  has  been  to  others, 
and  it  is  to  ourselves,  a  benevolent  warning.  Moses  would  have 
been  the  wretch  you  represent  him,  had  he  acted  by  his  own 
authority  alone  ;  but  you  may  as  reasonably  attribute  cruelty  and 
murder  to  the  judge  of  the  land  in  condemning  criminals  to  death, 
as  butchery  and  massacre  to  Moses  in  executing  the  command  of 
God. 

The  Midianites,  through  the  counsel  of  Balaam,  and  by  the  vi¬ 
cious  instrumentality  of  their  women,  had  seduced  a  part  of  the 
Israelites  to  idolatry ;  to  the  impure  worship  of  their  infamous  god 
Baalpeor :  for  this  offence,  twenty-four  thousand  Israelites  had  per¬ 
ished  in  a  plague  from  heaven,  and  Moses  received  a  command 
from  God  “  to  smite  the  Midianites  who  had  beguiled  the  people.” 
An  army  w'as  equipped,  and  sent  against  Midian.  When  the  army 
returned  victorious,  Moses  and  the  princes  of  the  congregation 
went  to  meet  it ;  “  and  Moses  was  wroth  with  the  officers.”  He 
observed  the  women  captives,  and  he  asked  with  astonishment, 

“  Have  ye  saved  all  the  women  alive  ?  Behold,  these  caused  the 
children  of  Israel,  through  the  counsel  of  Balaam,  to  commit  tres- 


123 


for  the  Bible. 

pass  against  the  Lord  in  the  matter  of  Peor,  and  there  was  a  plague 
among  the  congregation.”  He  then  gave  an  order,  that  the  boys 
and  the  women  should  be  put  t6  death,  but  that  the  yourig  maidens 
should  be  kept  alive  for  themselves.  I  see  nothing  in  this  proceed¬ 
ing,  but  good  policy,  combined  with  mercy.  The  young  men  might 
have  become  dangerous  avengers  of,  what  they  would  esteem, 
dieir  country’s  wrongs;  the  mothers  might  have  again  allured  the 
Israelites  to  the  love  of  licentious  pleasures  and  the  practice  ot 
idolatry,  and  brought  another  plague  upon  the  congregation  ;  bi^ 
the  young  maidens,  not  being  polluted  by  the  flagitious  habits  ot 
their  mothers,  nor  likely  to  create  disturbance  by  rebellion,  were 
kept  alive.  You  give  a  different  turn  to  the  matter ;  you  say,  “  that 
thirty-two  thousand  women-children  were  consigned  to  debaucliery 
by  the  order  of  Moses.”  Prove  this,  and  I  will  allow  that  Moses 
was  the  horrid  monster  you  make  him;  prove  this,  and  I  will  allotv 
that  the  Bible  is  what  you  call  it,  “  a  hook  of  lies,  wickedness,  and 
blasphemy;”  prove  this,  or  excuse  my  warmth  if  I  say  to  you,  as 
Paul  said  to  Elymas  the  sorcerer,  who  sought  to  turn  away  Sergius 
Paulus  from  the  faith,  “  O  full  of  all  subtilty,  and  all  mischief,  thou 
child  of  the  devil,  thou  enemy  of  all  righteousness,  wilt  thou  not 
cease  to  pervert  the  right  ways  of  the  Lord?”  I  did  not,  when  I 
beo-an  these  Letters,  think  that  I  should  have  been  moved  to  this 
severity  of  rebuke,  by  any  thing  you  could  have  written ;  but  when 
so  gross  a  misrepresentation  is  made  of  God’s  proceedings,  ccwln^s 
would  be  a  crime.  The  women-children  were  not  reserved  for  the 
purposes  of  debauchery,  but  of  slavery;  a  custom  a-bhorrent  from 
our  manners,  but  everywhere  practised  in  former  times,  and  still 
practised  in  countries  where  the  benignity  of  the  Christian  religion 
has  not  softened  the  ferocity  of  human  nature.  You  here  admit  a 
part  of  the  account  given  in  the  Bible  respecting  the  expedition 
against  Midian  to  be  a  true  account ;  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  desire 
that  you  will  admit  the  whole,  or  show  sufficient  reason  why  you 
admit  one  part,  and  reject  the  other.  I  will  mention  the  part  to 
which  you  have  paid  no  attention.  The  Israelitish  army  consisted 
but  of  twelve  thousand  men,  a  mere  handful  when  opposed  to  the 
people  of  Midian ;  yet,  when  the  officers  made  a  muster  of  their 
troops  after  their  return  from  the  war,  they  found  that  they  had  not 
lost  a  single  man!  This  circumstance  struck  them  as  so  decisive  an 
evidence  of  God’s  interposition,  that  out  of  the  spoils  they  had 
taken  thev  offered  “  an  oblation  to  the  Lord,  an  atonement  for  their 
souls.”  Do  but  believe  what  the  captains  of  thousands,  and  the 
captains  of  hundreds,  believed  at  the  time  when  these  things  hap¬ 
pened,  and  wm  shall  never  more  hear  of  your  objections  to  the 
Bible,  from  its  account  of  the  wars  of  Moses. 

You  produce  tivo  or  three  other  objections  respecting  the  gen¬ 
uineness  of  the  first  five  books  of  the  Bible.  I  cannot  stop  to  notice 
them :  every  commentator  answers  them  in  a  manner  suited  to  the 
apprehension  of  even  a  mere  English  reader.  You  calculate,  to  the 
thousandth  part  of  an  inch,  the  length  of  the  iron  bed  of  Og  the  king 
of  Basan;  but  you  do  not  prove  that  the  bed  was  too  big  for  the 


124  Watson's  Apology 

body,  or  that  a  Patagonian  would  have  been  lost  in  it.  You  make 
no  allowance  for  the  size  of  a  royal  bed  ;  nor  ever  suspect,  that  king 
Og  might  have  been  possessed  with  the  same  kind  of  vanity,  which 
occupied  the  mind  of  king  Alexander,  when  he  ordered  his  soldiers 
to  enlarge  the  size  of  their  beds,  that  they  might  give  to  the  Indians, 
in  succeeding  ages,  a  great  idea  of  the  prodigious  stature  of  a  Mace¬ 
donian.  In  many  parts  of  your  work  you  speak  much  in  commen¬ 
dation  of  science.  I  join  with  you  in  every  commendation  you  can 
give  it;  but  you  speak  of  it  in  such  a  manner,  as  gives  room  to  be¬ 
lieve,  that  you  are  a  great  proficient  in  it ;  if  this  be  the  case,  I 
would  recommend  a  problem  to  your  attention,  the  solution  of 
which  you  will  readily  allow  to  be  far  above  the  powers  of  a  man 
conversant  only,  as  you  represent  priests  and  bishops  to  be,  in  hie, 
hcBC,  hoc.  The  problem  is  this,  to  determine  the  height  to  which  a 
human  body,  preserving  its  similarity  of  figure,  may  be  augmented, 
before  it  will  perish  by  its  own  weight.  When  you  have  solved 
this  problem,  we  shall  loiow  whether  the  bed  of  the  king  of  Basan 
was  too  big  for  any  giant ;  whether  the  existence  of  a  man  twelve 
or  fifteen  feet  high  is  in  the  nature  of  things  impossible.  My  phi¬ 
losophy  teaches  me  to  doubt  of  many  things ;  but  it  does  not  teach 
me  to  reject  every  testimony  which  is  opposite  to  my  experience  : 
had  I  been  born  in  Shetland,  I  could,  on  proper  testimony,  have  be¬ 
lieved  in  the  existence  of  the  Lincolnshire  ox,  or  of  the  largest 
dray-horse  in  London ;  though  the  oxen  and  horses  in  Shetland  had 
not  been  bigger  than  mastiffs. 


LETTER  IV. 

Having  finished  your  objections  to  the  genuineness  of  the  books 
of  Moses,  you  proceed  to  your  remarks  on  the  book  of  Joshua ;  and 
from  its  internal  evidence  you  endeavor  to  prove,  that  this  book 
was  not  written  by  Joshua.  What  then  ?  what  is  your  conclusion  ? 
“  that  it  is  anonymous  and  without  authority.”  Stop  a  little ;  your 
conclusion  is  not  connected  with  your  premises ;  your  friend  Euclid 
would  have  been  ashamed  of  it.  “  Anonymous,  and  therefore  with¬ 
out  authority  ?”  I  have  noticed  this  solecism  before ;  but  as  you 
frequently  bring  it  forward,  and,  indeed,  your  book  stands  much  in 
need  of  it,  I  will  submit  to  your  consideration  another  observation 
on  the  subject — the  book  called  Fleta  is  anonymous,  but  it  is  noton 
that  account  without  authority.  Domesday  book  is  anonymous,  and 
was  written  above  seven  hundred  years  ago  ;  yet  our  courts  of  law 
do  not  hold  it  to  be  without  authority,  as  to  the  matters  of  fact  re¬ 
lated  in  it.  Yes,  you  will  sav,  but  |his  book  has  been  preserved 
with  singular  care  amongst  the  records  of  the  nation.  And  who 
told  you  that  the  Jews  had  no  records,  or  that  they  did  not  preserve 
them  with  singular  care  ?  Josephus  says  the  contrary :  and,  in  the 


125 


for  the  Bible. 

Bible  itself,  an  appeal  is  made  to  many  books  which  have  perished  ; 
such  as  the  books  of  Jasher,  the  book  of  Nathan,  of  Abijah,  of  Iddo, 
of  Jehu,  of  natural  history  by  Solomon,  of  the  acts  of  Manasseh,  and 
others  which  might  be  mentioned.  If  any  one  having  access  to  the 
iournals  of  the  lords  and  commons,  to  the  books  of  the  treasuiy, 
war  office,  privy  council,  and  other  public  documents,  should  at  this 
day  write  a  history  of  the  reigns  of  George  the  First  and  Second, 
and  should  publish  it  without  his  name,  would  any  man,  three  or 
four  hundreds  or  thousands  of  years  hence,  question  the  authority 
of  that  book,  when  he  knew  that  the  w'hole  British  nation  had  re¬ 
ceived  it  as  an  authentic  book  from  the  time  of  its  first  public^on 
to  the  age  in  which  he  lived  ?  This  supposition  is  in  point.  The 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  composed  from  the  records  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  and  they  have  been  received  as  true  by  that  nation, 
from  the  time  in  Avhich  they  were  wTitten  to  the  present  day. 
Dodsley’s  Aimual  Register  is  an  anonymous  book,  we  only  know 
the  name  of  its  editor  ^  the  New  Annual  Register  is  an  anonymous 
book ;  the  Review's  are  anonymous  books ;  but  do  w'e.  or  will  our 
posterity,  esteem  these  books  as  of  no  authority  ?  On  the  contrary, 
they  are  admitted  at  present,  and  will  be  received  in  after  ages,  as 
authoritative  records  of  the  civil,  military,  and  literal  histcwy  oi 
England  and  of  Europe.  So  little  foundation  is  there  for  our  being 
startled  by  your  assertion,  “  it  is  anonymous  and  without  authority. 

If  I  am  right  in  this  reasoning  (and  I  protest  to  you  that  I  do  imt 
see  any  error  in  it),  all  the  arguments  you  adduce  in  proof  that  the 
book  of  Joshua  was  not  written  by  Joshua,  nor  that  ot  Samuel  by 
Samuel,  are  nothing  to  the  purpose  for  Avhich  you  have  brought 
them  forward  :  these  books  may  be  books  of  authority,  though  ail 
you  advance  against  the  genuineness  of  them  should  be  granted. 
No  article  of  faith  is  injured  by  allowing,  that  there  is  no  such  posi¬ 
tive  proof,  when  or  by  whom  these,  and  some  other  books  ot  Holy 
Scripture  were  written,  as  to  exclude  all  possibility  ot  doubt  and 
cavil.  There  is  no  necessity,  indeed,  to  allow  this.  The  chrono¬ 
logical  and  historical  difficulties,  which  others  before  you  have  pro¬ 
duced,  have  been  answered,  and,  as  to  the  greatest  part  ot  them, 
so  well  answ'ered,  that  I  wdll  not  waste  the  reader  s  time  by  enter¬ 
ing  into  a  particular  examination  of  them. 

You  make  yourself  merry  wdth  what  you  call  the  tale  oi  the  sun 
standing  still  upon  mount  Gibeon,  and  the  moon  in  the  valley  ot 
Aialon  ;  and  you  say,  that  “  the  story  detects  itself,  because  there  is 
not  a  nation  in  the  world  that  knows  any  thing  about  it.  How  can 
you  expect  that  there  should,  when  there  is  not  a  nadion  in  the 
world  whose  annals  reach  this  era  by  many  hundred  years  It 
happens,  however,  that  you  are  probably  mista_ken  as  to  the  lact :  a 
confused  tradition  concerning  this  miracle,  and  a  similar  one  in  the 
time  of  Ahaz,  when  the  sun  went  back  ten  degrees,  has  been  pre¬ 
served  amongst  one  of  the  most  ancient  nations,  as  we  are  mtormed 
by  one  of  the  most  ancient  historians.  Herodotus,  m  his  Euterpe, 
speaking  of  the  Egyptian  priests,  says,  “they  told  me,  that  the  sun 
had  four  times  deviated  Irom  his  course,  having  twice  risen  where 
L2 


126 


Watsori's  Apology 


he  urufOTmly  goes  down,  and  twice  gone  down  where  he  uniformly 
nses.  This,  however,  had  produced  no  alteration  in  the  climate  of 
£.gypt;  tne  fruits  of  the  earth,  and  the  phenomena  of  the  Nile,  had 
always  been  the  same.”  (Beloe’s  Trans.)  The  last  part  of  this  ob¬ 
servation  confirms  the  conjecture,  that  this  account  of  the  Egyptian 
priests  had  a  reference  to  the  two  miracles  respecting  the  sun  men¬ 
tioned  in  Scripture ;  for  they  were  not  of  that  kind,  which  could 
introduce  any  change  in  climates  or  seasons.  You  would  have 
been  contented  to  admit  the  account  of  this  miracle  as  a  fine  piece 
of  poetical  imagery ;  you  may  have  seen  some  Jewish  doctors,  and 
some  Christian  commentators  who  consider  it  as  such,  but  improp¬ 
erly,  in  my  opinion.  I  think  it  idle,  at  least,  if  not  impious,  to  un¬ 
dertake  to  explain  how  the  miracle  wms  performed ;  but  one,  who 
IS  not  able  to  explain  the  mode  of  doing  a  thing,  argues  ill  if  he 
thence  infers  that  the  thing  w'as  not  done.  We  are  perfectly  igno¬ 
rant  how  the  sun  was  formed,  how  the  planets  were  projected  at 
the  creation,  how  thev  are  still  retained  in  their  orbits  by  the  power 
of  gravity  ;  but  we  admit,  notwithstanding,  that  the  sun  was  formed 
that  the  planets  were  then  projected,  and  that  they  are  still  retained 
m  their  orbits.  The  machine  of  the  universe  is  in  the  hand  of  God  ; 
he  can  stop  the  motion  of  any  part,  or  of  the  whole  of  it,  with  less 
trouble,  and  less  danger  of  injuring  it,  than  you  can  stop  your  watch. 
In  testimony  of  the  reality  of  the  miracle,  the  author  of  the  book 
says,  “  IS  not  this  written  in  the  book  of  Jasher?”  No  author  in  his 
senses  would  have  appealed,  in  proof  of  his  veracity,  to  a  book 
which  did  not  exist,  or  in  attestation  of  a  fact,  which,  though  it  did 

fhTArr  T  T  'W^^fely,  therefore,  conclude, 

that  at  the  time  the  book  of  Joshua  w^as  written,  there  w'as  such  a 

book  as  the  book  of  Jasher,  and  that  the  miracle  of  the  sun’s  stand¬ 
ing  still  was  recorded  in  tliat  book.  But  this  observation,  you  wall 
say,  does  not  prove  the  fact  of  the  sun  having  stood  still ;  I  have 
not  produced  it  as  a  priwf  of  that  fact ;  but  it  proves,  that  the  author 
of  the  book  of  Joshua  believed  the  fact,  and  that  the  people  of  Is¬ 
rael  admitted  the  authority  of  the  book  of  Jasher.  An  appeal  to  a 
fabulous  book  would  have  been  as  senseless  an  insult  upon  their 
understanding,  as  it  would  have  been  upon  ours,  had  Rapin  ap- 

tle^of^IlLting^^^^^^^  Nights’  Entertainments  as  a  proof  of  the  ba^ 

I  cannot  atMbute  much  weight  to  your  argument  against  the 
genuineness  of  the  book  of  Joshua,  from  its  being  said,  that  “Joshua 
burned  Ai,  and  made  it  a  heap  for  ever,  even  a  desolation  unto  this 
day.  Joshua  lived  twentv-four  years  after  the  burning  of  Ai :  and 
f  he  wrote  his  history  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  what  absurdity 
s  there  in  saying  Ai  is  still  in  ruins,  or  Ai  is  in  ruins  to  this  very 
day  (  A  young  man,  who  had  seen  the  heads  of  the  rebels  in  1745 
when  they  were  first  stuck  upon  poles  at  Temple  Bar,  might,  twenty’ 
years  afterwards,  m  attestation  of  his  veracity  in  speaking  of  the 
fact,  have  justly  said,  and  they  are  there  to  this  very  day.  A^Tioever 
^  f  ^^“hew,  it  was  written  not  many  centuries, 
probably  (I  had  almost  said  certainly)  not  a  quarter  of  one  centui^ 


127 


for  the  Bible. 

after  the  death  of  Jesus;  yet  the  author,  speaking  of  the  potter’s 
field,  which  had  been  purchased  by  the  chief  priests  with  the 
money  they  had  given  Judas  to  betray  his  master,  says,  that  it  was 
therefore  called  the  field  of  blood  unto  this  day ;  and  in  another 
place  he  says,  that  the  story  of  the  body  of  Jesus  being  stolen  out 
of  the  sepulchre  was  commonly  reported  among  the  Jews  until  this 
day.  Moses,  in  his  old  age,  had  made  use  of  a  similar  expression, 
when  he  put  the  Israelites  in  mind  of  what  the  Lord  had  done  to 
the  Egyptians  in  the  Red  Sea,  “  the  Lord  has  destroyed  them  unto 

this  day.”  (Deut.  xi.  4.)  .  ,  ,  ,  t 

In  the  last  chapter  of  the  book  of  Joshua  it  is  related,  that  J  ostiua 
assembled  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  to  Shechem ;  and  there,  in  tlm 
presence  of  the  elders  and  principal  men  of  Israel,  he  recapitulated, 
in  a  short  speech,  all  that  God  had  done  lor  their  nation,  from  the 
calling  of  Abraham  to  that  time  when  they  were  settled  in  the 
land  which  God  had  promised  to  their  forefathers.  In  finishing  his 
speech,  he  said  to  them,  “  Choose  you  this  day  whom  you  will 
serve,  whether  the  gods  which  your  fathers  served,  that  were  on 
the  other  side  of  the  flood,  or  the  gods  of  the  Amorites,  in  whose 
land  ye  dw^ell :  but  as  for  me  and  my  house,  we  will  serve  the 
Lord.  And  the  people  answered  and  said,  God  forbid  that  we  should 
forsake  the  Lord  to  serve  other  Gods.”  Joshua  urged  farther,  that 
God  would  not  suffer  them  to  worship  other  gods  in  fellowship  with 
him ;  they  answ’ered,  that  “  they  would  serve  the  Lord.’  Joshua 
then  said  to  them,  “  ye  are  witnesses  against  yourselves,  that  ye 
have  chosen  you  the  Lord  to  serve  him.  And  they  said.  We  are 
witnesses.”  Here  was  a  solemn  covenant  betw'een  Joshua  on  the 
part  of  the  Lord,  and  all  the  men  of  Israel  on  their  own  part.  'The 
text  then  says,  “  so  Joshua  made  a  covenant  with  the  people  that 
day,  and  set  them  a  statute  and  an  ordinance  in  Shechem,  and 
Joshua  wTote  these  words  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  God.”  Here  is 
a  proof  of  two  things ;  first,  that  there  was  then,  a  few'  years  after 
the  death  of  Moses,  existing  a  book  called  the  Book  of  the  Law  of 
God ;  the  same,  without  doubt,  which  Moses  had  written,  and  com¬ 
mitted  to  the  custody  of  the  Levites,  that  it  might  be  kept  in  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  that  it  might  be  a  witness  against 
them ;  secondly,  that  Joshua  wrote  a  part  at  least  of  his  own  trans¬ 
actions  in  that  very  book,  as  an  addition  to  it.  It  is  not  a  proof  that 
he  wrote  all  his  owm  transactions  in  any  book ;  but  I  submit  entirely 
to  the  judgment  of  every  candid  man,  whether  this  proof  of  his 
having  recorded  a  veiy  material  transaction,  does  not  make  it  prob¬ 
able  that  he  recorded  other  material  transactions ;  that  he  wrote 
the  chief  part  of  the  book  of  Joshua;  and  that  such  things  as  hap¬ 
pened  after  his  death  have  been  inserted  in  it  by  others  in  order  to 
render  the  liistory  more  complete. 

'The  book  of  Joshua,  chap,  vi,  ver.  26,  is  quoted  in  the  first  book 
of  Kings,  chap,  xvi,  ver.  34.  “In  his  (Ahab’s)  days  did  Hiel,  the 
Bethelite,  build  Jericho :  he  laid  the  foundation  thereof  in  Abirara, 
his  first-born,  and  set  up  the  gates  thereof  in  his  youngest  son, 
Segub,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  he  spake  by 


128 


Watson^s  Ajiology 

Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun.”  Here  is  a  proof  that  the  book  of  Joshua 
is  older  than  the  first  book  of  Kings  :  but  that  is  not  all  which  may 
reasonably  be  inferred,  I  do  not  say  proved,  from  this  quotation.  It 
may  be  inferred  from  the  phrase,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
wliich  he  spake  by  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun,  that  Joshua  wrote  down 
the  word  which  the  Lord  had  spoken.  In  Baruch  (which,  though 
an  apocryphal  book,  is  authority  for  this  purpose)  there  is  a  similar 
phrase,  as  thou  spakest  by  thy  servant  Moses,  in  the  day  when  thou 
didst  command  him  to  write  thy  law. 

I  think  it  unnecessary  to  make  any  observation  on  what  you  say 
relative  to  the  book  of  Judges;  but  I  cannot  pass  unnoticed  your 
censure  of  the  book  of  Ruth,  which  you  call  “  an  idle  bungling 
stoiy,  foolishly  told,  no  body  knows  by  whom,  about  a  strolling 
country  girl  creeping  slily  to  bed  to  her  cousin  Boaz ;  pretty  stuff; 
indeed,”  you  exclaim,  “  to  be  called  the  word  of  God !”  It  seems  to 
me,  that  you  do  not  perfectly  comprehend  what  is  meant  by  the  ex¬ 
pression,  the  word  of  God,  or  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures : 
I  will  explain  it  to  you  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Law,  late  bishop  of  Car¬ 
lisle,  and  in  those  of  St.  Austin.  My  first  quotation  is  from  bishop 
Law’s  Theory  of  Religion,  a  book  not  undeserving  your  notice. 
“  The  true  sense,  then,  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  which,  perhaps,  is  enough  to  denominate  them 
in  general  divinely  inspired,  seems  to  be  this ;  that  as  in  those  times 
God  has  all  along,  beside  the  inspection,  or  superintendency  of  his 
general  providerice,  interfered  upon  particular  occasions,  by  giving 
express  cornmissions  to  some  persons  (thence  called  prophets)  to  de¬ 
clare  his  will  in  various  manners  and  degrees  of  evidence,  as  best 
suited  the  occasion,  time,  and  nature  of  the  subject ;  and  in  all  other 
cases  left  them  wholly  to  themselves :  in  like  manner  he  has  inter¬ 
posed  his  more  immediate  assistance  (and  notified  it  to  them,  as  they 
did  to  the  world)  in  the  recording  of  these  revelations ;  so  far  as 
that  was  necessary,  amidst  the  common  (but  from  hence  termed  sa¬ 
cred)  history  of  those  times,  and  mixed  with  various  other  occur¬ 
rences,  in  which  the  historian’s  own  natural  qualifications  were 
sufficient  to  enable  him  to  relate  things  with  all  the  accuracy  they 
required.”  The  passage  from  St.  Austin  is  this,  “I  am  of  opinion, 
that  those  men,  to  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  revealed  what  ought  to  be 
received  as  authoritative  in  religion,  might  write  some  things  as  men 
with  historical  diligence,  and  other  things  as  prophets  by  divine  in¬ 
spiration  ;  and  that  these  things  are  so  distinct,  that  the  former  may 
be  attributed  to  themselves,  as  contributing  to  the  increase  of  know¬ 
ledge,  and  the  latter  to  God  speaking  by  them  things  appertaining 
to  the  authority  of  religion.”  Whether  this  opinion  be  right  or  wrong, 
I  do  not  here  inquire ;  it  is  the  opinion  of  many  learned  men  and 
good  Christians :  and,  if  you  will  adopt  it  as  your  opinion,  you  will 
see  cause,  perhaps,  to  become  a  Christian  yourself;  you  will  see 
cause  to  consider  chronological,  geographical,  or  genealogical  errors, 
apparent  mistakes  or  real  contradictions  as  to  historical  facts ;  need¬ 
less  repetitions  and  trifling  interpolations;  indeed,  you  will  see 
cause  to  consider  all  the  principal  objections  of  your  book  to  be  ab- 


129 


for  the  Bible. 

solutely  without  foundation.  Receive  but  the  Bible  as  composed  by 
upright  and  well-informed,  though,  in  some  points,  fallible  men  (for 
I  exclude  all  fallibility  when  they  profess  to  deliver  the  word  of 
God),  and  you  must  receive  it  as  a  book  revealing  to  you,  in  many 
parts,  the  express  will  of  God  ;  and  in  other  parts,  relating  to  you 
the  ordinary  history  of  the  times.  Give  but  the  authors  of  the  Bible 
that  credit  which  you  give  to  our  historians ;  believe  them  to  de¬ 
liver  the  word  of  God,  when  they  tell  you  that  they  do  so  ;  believe, 
when  they  relate  other  things  as  of  themselves  and  not  of  the  Lord, 
that  they  wrote  to  the  best  of  their  knowledge  and  capacity,  and 
you  will  be  in  your  belief  something  very  different  from  a  deist; 
you  may  not  be  allowed  to  aspire  to  the  character  of  an  orthodox 
believer,  but  you  will  not  be  an  unbeliever  in  the  divine  authority 
of  the  Bible  ;  though  you  should  admit  human  mistakes  and  human 
opinions  to  exist  in  some  parts  of  it.  This  I  take  to  be  the  first  step 
towEirds  the  rcniovcil  of  th©  doubts  of  ruuny  scoptical  uion ,  and 
when  they  are  advanced  thus  far,  the  grace  of  God,  assisting  a 
teachable  disposition,  and  a  pious  intention,  may  carry  them  on  to 

perfection.  _  •,  c<i  ^ 

As  to  Ruth,  you  do  an  injury  to  her  character,  bhe  Was  not  a 

strolling  country  girl.  She  had  been  married  ten  years ;  and  being 
left  a  widow  without  children,  she  accompanied  her  mother-in-law, 
returning  into  her  native  country,  out  of  which,  Avith  her  husband 
and  her  two  sons,  she  had  been  driven  by  a  famine.  The  disturb¬ 
ances  in  France  have  driven  many  men  with  their  families  to 
America.  If,  ten  years  hence,  a  Avoman,  having  lost  her  husband 
and  her  children,  should  return  to  France  with  a  daughter-in-laAV, 
would  you  be  justified  in  calling  the  daughter-in-law  a  strolling 
country  girl  ?  “  But  she  crept  slily  to  bed  to  her  cousin  Boaz.”  I  do 
not  find  it  so  in  the  history :  as  a  person  imploring  protection,  she 
laid  herself  down  at  the  foot  of  an  aged  kinsman’s  bed,  and  she  rose 
up  with  as  much  innocence  as  she  had  laid  herself  down.  She  was 
afterwards  married  to  Boaz,  and  reputed  by  all  her  neighbors  a  Aur- 
tuous  woman ;  and  they  were  more  likely  to  know  her  character  than 
you  are.  Whoever  reads  the  book  of  Ruth,  bearing  in  mind  the 
simplicity  of  ancient  manners,  will  find  it  an  interesting  story  of  a 
poor  young  woman,  following  in  a  strange  land  the  advice,  and 
affectionately  attaching  herself  to  the  fortunes  of  the  mother  of  her 
deceased  husband. 

The  two  books  of  Samuel  come  next  under  your  review,  ion 
proceed  to  show,  that  these  books  were  not  written  by  Samuel,  that 
they  are  anonymous,  and  thence  you  conclude  without  authority.  I 
need  not  here  repeat  what  I  have  said  upon  the  fallacy  of  your  con¬ 
clusion  ;  and  as  to  your  proving  that  the  books  were  not  written  by 
Samuel,  you  might  have  spared  yourself  some  trouble  if  you  had 
recollected,  that  it  is  generally  admitted,  that  Samuel  did  not  write 
any  part  of  the  second  book  which  bears  his  name,  and  only  a  part 
of  the  first.  It  would,  indeed,  have  been  an  inquiry  not  undeserv- 
ing  your  notice,  in  many  parts  of  your  work,  to  have  exannned 
what  was  tlie  opinion  of  learned  men  respecting  the  authors  of  the 


130 


Watson^s  Apology 

several  books  of  the  Bible  ;  you  would  have  found,  that  you  were 
in  many  places  fighting  a  phantom  of  your  own  raising,  and  proving 
what  was  generally  admitted.  Very  little,  certainly,  I  think,  can  at 
this  time  be  obtained  on  this  subject ;  but  that  you  may  have  some 
knowledge  of  what  has  been  conjectured  by  men  of  judgment,  I 
will  quote  to  you  a  passage  from  Dr.  Hartley’s  Observations  on  Man. 
The  author  himself  does  not  vouch  for  the  truth  of  his  observation, 
for  he  begins  it  with  a  supposition.  “  I  suppose,  then,  that  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch  consists  of  tlie  writings  of  Moses,  put  together  by  Samuel, 
with  a  very  few  additions ;  that  the  books  of  Joshua  and  Judges 
were,  in  like  manner,  collected  by  him ;  and  the  book  of  Ruth,  with 
the  first  part  of  the  first  book  of  Samuel,  written  by  him ;  that  the 
latter  part  of  the  first  book  of  Samuel,  and  the  second  book,  were 
written  by  the  prophets  who  succeeded  Samuel,  suppose  Nathan 
and  Gad ;  that  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  are  extracts  from 
the  records  of  the  succeeding  prophets,  concerning  their  own  times, 
and  from  the  public  genealogical  tables,  made  by  Ezra ;  that  the 
books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  are  collections  of  like  records,  some 
written  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and  some  by  their  predecessors  ; 
that  the  book  of  Esther  was  written  by  some  eminent  Jew,  in  or 
near  the  times  of  the  transactions  there  recorded,  perhaps  Mordecai  j 
the  book  of  Job  by  a  Jew,  of  an  uncertain  time;  the  Psalms  by 
David  and  other  pious  persons ;  the  books  of  Proverbs  and  Canticles 
by  Solomon ;  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes  by  Solomon,  or  perhaps  by  a 
Jew  of  later  times,  speaking  in  his  person,  but  not  with  an  intention 
to  make  him  pass  for  the  author ;  the  prophecies  by  the  prophets 
whose  names  they  bear ;  and  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  by 
the  persons  to  whom  they  are  usually  ascribed.”  I  have  produced 
this  passage  to  you  not  merely  to  show  you,  that,  in  a  great  part  of 
your  work,  you  are  attacking  what  no  person  is  interested  in  defend- 
ing ;  but  to  convince  you,  that  a  wise  and  good  man,  and  a  firm  be¬ 
liever  in  revealed  religion,  for  such  was  Dr.  Hartley,  and  no  priest, 
did  not  reject  the  anonymous  books  of  the  Old  Testament  as  books 
without  authority.  I  shall  not  trouble  either  you  or  myself  with 
any  more  observations  on  that  head ;  you  may  ascribe  the  two  books 
of  Kings,  and  the  two  books  of  Chronicles,  to  what  authoi*s  you 
please  ;  I  am  satisfied  with  knowing,  that  the  annals  of  the  Jewish 
nation  were  written  in  the  time  of  Samuel,  and,  probably,  in  all 
succeeding  times,  by  men  of  ability,  who  lived  in  or  near  the  times 
of  which  they  write.  Of  the  truth  of  this  observation  we  have 
abundant  proof,  not  only  from  the  testimony  of  Josephus,  and  of  the 
writers  of  the  Talmuds,  but  from  the  Old  Testament  itself  I  will 
content  myself  with  citing  a  few  places :  “  Now  the  acts  of  David 
the  king,  first  and  last,  behold  they  are  written  in  the  book  of 
Samuel  the  seer,  and  in  the  book  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  in  the 
book  of  Gad  the  seer.”  1  Chron.  xxix,  29.  “Now  the  rest  of  ihe 
acts  of  Solomon,  first  and  last,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of 
Nathan  the  prophet,  and  in  the  prophecy  of  Ahijah  the  Shilonite, 
and  m  the  visions  of  Iddo  the  seer  ?”  2  Chron.  ix,  29.  “  Now  the 

acts  of  Rehohoam,  first  and  last,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of 


131 


Jor  the  Bible. 

Shemaiah  the  prophet,  and  of  Iddo  the  seer,  concerning  genealo¬ 
gies  ?”  2  Chron.  xii.  15.  “  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Jehoshaphat, 
first  and  last,  behold  they  are  written  in  the  book  of  Jehu  the  son 
of  Hanani.”  2  Chron.  xx.  34.  Is  it  possible  for  writers  to  give  a 
stronger  evidence  of  their  veracity,  than  by  referring  their  readers 
to  the  books  from  which  they  had  extracted  the  materials  of  their 
history  ? 

“  The  two  books  of  Kings,”  you  say,  “  are  little  more  than  a  his¬ 
tory  of  assassinations,  treachery,  and  war.”  That  the  kings  of  Israel 
and  Judah  were  many  of  them  very  wicked  persons  is  evident  from 
the  history  which  is  given  of  them  in  the  Bible ;  but  it  ought  to  be 
remembered,  that  their  wickedness  is  not  to  be  attributed  to  their 
religion ;  nor  were  the  people  of  Israel  chosen  to  be  the  people  of 
God,  on  account  of  their  wickedness ;  nor  was  their  being  chosen  a 
cause  of  it.  One  may  wonder,  indeed,  that,  having  experienced  so 
many  singular  marks  of  God’s  goodness  towards  their  nation,  they 
did  not  at  once  become,  and  continue  to  be  (what,  however,  they 
have  long  been),  strenuous  advocates  for  the  worship  of  one  only 
God,  the  maker  of  heaven  and  earth.  This  was  the  purpose  for 
which  they  w’ere  chosen,  and  this  purpose  has  been  accomplished. 
For  above  three  and  twenty  hundred  years  the  Jews  have  iiniformly 
wimessed  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  the  unity  of  God,  and  his 
abomination  of  idolatry.  But  as  you  look  upon  “  the  appellation  of 
the  Jews  being  God’s  holy  people  as  a  lie,  which  the  priests  and 
leaders  of  the  Jews  had  invented  to  cover  the  baseness  of  their  own 
characters,  and  which  Christian  priests,  sometimes  as  corrupt,  and 
often  as  cruel,  have  professed  to  believe,”  I  wall  plainly  state  to  you 
the  reasons  which  induce  me  to  believe  that  it  is  no  lie,  and  I  hope 
they  will  be  such  reasons  as  you  will  not  attribute  either  to  cruelty 
or  corruption. 

To  any  one  contemplating  the  universality  of  things,  and  the 
fabric  of  nature,  this  globe  of  earth,  with  the  men  dwelling  on  its 
surface,  will  not  appear  (exclusive  of  the  divinity  of  their  souls)  of 
more  importance  than  a  hillock  of  ants ;  all  of  which,  some  with 
corn,  some  with  eggs,  some  without  any  thing,  run  hither  and  thither, 
bustling  about  a  little  heap  of  dust.  This  is  a  thought  of  the  im¬ 
mortal  Bacon ;  and  it  is  admirably  fitted  to  humble  the  pride  of 
philosophy,  attempting  to  prescribe  forms  to  the  proceedings,  and 
bounds  to  the  attributes  of  God.  We  may  as  easily  circumscribe  in¬ 
finity,  as  penetrate  the  secret  purposes  of  the  Almighty.  There  are 
but  two  ways  by  which  I  can  acquire  any  knowledge  of  the  nature 
of  the  Supreme  Being,  by  reason,  and  by  revelation ;  to  you,  who 
reject  revelation,  there  is  but  one.  Now  my  reason  informs  me, 
that  God  has  made  a  great  difference  between  the  kinds  of  animals, 
wuth  respect  to  their  capacity  of  enjoying  happiness.  Every  kind 
is  perfect  in  its  order  ;  but  if  we  compare  different  kinds  together, 
one  will  appear  to  be  greatly  superior  to  another  An  animal, 
which  has  but  one  sense,  has  but  one  source  of  happiness,  but  if  it 
be  supplied  w'ith  what  is  suited  to  that  sense,  it  enjoys  all  the  hap¬ 
piness  of  which  it  is  capable,  and  is  in  its  nature  perfect.  Other 


182  Watson^s  Apology 

sorts  of  animals,  which  have  two  or  three  senses,  and  which  have 
also  abundant  means  of  gratifying  them,  enjoy  twice  or  thrice  as 
much  happiness  as  those  do  which  have  but  one.  In  the  same  sort 
of  animals  there  is  a  great  difference  amongst  individuals,  one  hav¬ 
ing  the  senses  more  perfect,  and  the  body  less  subject  to  disease, 
than  another.  Hence,  if  I  were  to  form  a  judgment  of  the  Divine 
goodness  by  this  use  of  my  reason,  I  could  not  but  say  that  it  was 
f)artial  and  unequal.  “  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  is  God  unjust  ? 
God  forbid  ?”  His  goodness  may  be  unequal,  without  being  imper¬ 
fect  ;  it  must  be  estimated  from  the  whole,  and  not  from  a  part. 
Every  order  of  beings  is  so  sufficient  for  its  own  happiness,  and  so 
conducive,  at  the  same  time,  to  the  happiness  of  every  other,  that 
in  one  \new’  it  seems  to  be  made  for  itself  alone,  and  in  another,  not 
for  itself  but  for  every  other.  Could  we  comprehend  the  whole  of 
the  immense  fabric  which  God  hath  formed,  I  am  persuaded,  that 
we  should  see  nothing  but  perfection,  harmony,  and  beauty,  in  every 
part  of  it;  but  whilst  we  dispute  about  parts,  w’e  neglect  the  whole, 
and  discern  nothing  but  supposed  anomalies  and  defects.  The 
maker  of  a  watch,  or  the  builder  of  a  ship,  is  not  to  be  blamed  be 
cause  a  spectator  cannot  discover  either  the  beauty  or  the  use  of 
disjointed  parts.  And  shall  we  dare  to  accuse  God  of  injustice,  for 
not  having  distributed  the  gifts  of  nature  in  the  same  degree  to  all 
kinds  of  animals,  when  it  is  probable  that  this  very  inequality  of 
distribution  may  be  the  mean  of  producing  the  greatest  sum-total 
of  happiness  to  the  whole  system?  in  exactly  the  same  manner  may 
we  reason  concerning  the  acts  of  God’s  especial  providence.  If  we 
consider  any  one  act,  such  as  that  of  appointing  the  Jews  to  be  Ins 
peculiar  people,  as  unconnected  with  every  other,  it  may  appear  to 
be  a  partial  display  of  his  goodness  ;  it  may  excite  doubts  concern¬ 
ing  tlie  wi.sdom  or  the  benignity  of  his  divine  nature.  But  if  we 
connect  the  history  of  the  Jews  with  that  of  other  nations,  from  the 
most  remote  antiquity  to  the  present  time,  we  shall  discover,  that 
they  were  not  chosen  so  much  for  their  own  benefit,  or  on  account 
of  their  own  merit,  as  for  the  general  benefit  of  mankind.  To  the 
Egyptians,  Chaldeans,  Grecians,  Romans,  to  all  the  people  of  the 
earth,  they  were  formerly,  and  they  are  still  to  all  civilized  nations, 
a  beacon  set  upon  a  hill,  to  wnrn  them  from  idolatry,  to  light  them 
to  the  sanctuary  of  a  God  holy,  just,  and  good.  Wliy  should  we 
suspect  such  a  dispensation  of  being  a  lie  I  w’hen  even  from  the 
little  which  we  can  understand  of  it,  we  see  that  it  is  founded  in 
wasdorn,  carried  on  for  the  general  good,  and  analogous  to  all  that 
rea.son  teaches  us  concerning  the  nature  of  God. 

Several  things,  you  observe,  are.  mentioned  in  the  book  of  the 
Kings,  such  as  the  drying  up  of  Jeroboam’s  hand,  the  ascent  of  El  ijah 
info  heaven,  the  destruction  of  the  children  who  mocked  Elisha, 
and  the  resurrection  of  a  dead  man:  these  circumstances  being 
mentioned  in  the  book  of  Kings,  and  not  mentioned  in  that  of 
Chronicles,  is  a  proof  to  you  that  they  are  lies.  I  esteem  it  a  very 
erroneous  mode  of  reasonijig,  which,  from  the  silence  of  one  au¬ 
thor  concerning  a  particular  circumstance,  infers  the  want  of  ve- 


133 


for  the  Bible. 

racity  in  another  who  mentions  it.  And  this  observation  is  still 
more  cogent,  when  applied  to  a  book  which  is  only  a  supplement 
to,  or  an  abridgment  of,  other  books ;  and  under  this  description 
the  book  of  Chronicles  has  been  considered  by  all  WTiters.  But 
though  you  will  not  beheve  the  miracle  of  the  drying  up  of  Jero¬ 
boam’s  hand,  what  can  you  say  to  the  prophecy  which  wns  then 
delivered  concerning  the  future  destruction  of  the  idolatrous  altar 
of  Jeroboam  ?  The  prophecy  is  thus  written,  1  Kings  xiii.  2,  “  Be¬ 
hold,  a  child  shall  be  bom  unto  the  house  of  David,  Josiah  by  name, 
and  upon  thee  (the  altar)  shall  he  offer  the  priests  of  the  high 
places.”  Here  is  a  clear  prophecy;  the  name,  family,  and  office  of 
a  particular  person  are  described  in  the  year  9  /5  (according  to  the 
Bible  chronology)  before  Christ.  Above  35()  years  after  the  delivery 
of  the  prophecy,  you  will  find,  by  consulting  the  second  book  of 
Kings  (chap,  xxiii.  15,  16),  this  prophecy  fulfilled  in  all  its  parts. 

You  make  a  calculation,  that  Genesis  was  not  written  till  eight 
hundred  years  after  Moses,  and  that  it  is  of  the  same  age,  and  you 
may  probably  think,  of  the  same  authority  as  ^sop’s  Fables.  You 
give,  what  you  call  the  evidence  of  this,  the  air  of  a  demonstration. 
“  It  has  but  two  stages :  first,  the  account  of  the  kings  of  Edom, 
mentioned  in  Genesis,  is  taken  from  Chronicles ;  and,  therefore,  the 
book  of  Genesis  was  written  after  the  book  of  Chronicles.  Secondly, 
the  book  of  Chronicles  was  not  begun  to  be  written  till  after  Zede- 
kiah,  in  whose  time  Nebuchadnezzar  conquered  Jerusalem,  five 
hundred  and  eighty-eight  years  before  Christ,  and  more  than  eight 
hundred  and  sixty  after  Moses.”  Having  answered  this  objection 
before,  I  might  be  excused  taldng  any  more  notice  of  it;  but  as  you 
build  much,  in  this  place,  upon  the  strength  of  your  argument,  I 
will  show  you  its  weakness,  when  it  is  properly  stated.  A  few 
verses  in  the  book  of  Genesis  could  not  be  written  by  Moses ;  there¬ 
fore,  no  part  of  Genesis  could  be  written  by  Moses ; — a  child  would 
deny  your  therefore.  Again  :  a  few  verses  in  the  book  of  Genesis 
could  not  be  written  by  Moses,  because  they  speak  of  Idngs  of  Is¬ 
rael,  there  having  been  no  kings  of  Israel  in  the  time  of  Moses ; 
and,  therefore,  they  could  not  be  written  by  Samuel,  or  by  Solomon, 
or  by  any  other  persons  who  lived  after  there  were  kings  in  Israel, 
except  by  the  author  of  the  book  of  Chronicles ;  this  is  also  an 
illegitimate  inference  from  your  position.  Again  :  a  few  verses  m 
the  book  of  Genesis  are,  word  for  word,  the  same  as  a  few  verses 
in  the  book  of  Chronicles;  therefore,  the  author  of  the  book  of 
Genesis  must  have  taken  them  from  Chronicles; — another  lame 
conclusion.  Why  might  not  the  author  of  the  book  of  Chronicles 
have  taken  them  from  Genesis,  as  he  has  taken  many  other  genealo¬ 
gies,  supposing  them  to  have  been  inserted  in  Genesis  by  Samuel  ? 
But  where,  you  may  ask,  could  Samuel,  or  any  other  person,  have 
found  the  account  of  the  kings  of  Edom  ?  Probably,  in  the  public, 
records  of  the  nation,  which  were  certainly  as  open  for  inspectio^ 
to  Samuel,  and  the  other  prophets,  as  they  were  to  the  author  of 
Chronicles.  I  hold  it  needless  to  employ  more  time  on  the  subject 
M  9 


134 


Walsonh  Apology 


LETTER  V. 

At  length  you  come  to  two  books,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  which 
you  allow  to  be  genuine  books,  giving  an  account  of  the  return  of 
the  Jews  from  the  Babylonian  captivity,  about  five  hundred  and 
thirty-six  years  before  Christ ;  but  then  you  say,  “  Those  accounts  are 
nothing  to  us,  nor  to  any  other  persons,  unless  it  be  to  the  Jews,  as  a 
part  of  the  history  of  their  nation ;  and  there  is  just  as  much  of  the 
word  of  God  in  those  books,  as  there  is  in  any  of  the  histories  of 
France,  or  in  Rapin’s  History  of  England.”  Here  let  us  stop  a  mo¬ 
ment,  and  try,  if  from  your  own  concessions  it  be  not  possible  to 
confute  your  argument  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  you  grant,  are  genuine 
books,  “  but  they  are  nothing  to  us !”  The  very  first  verse  of  Ezra 
says,  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  was  fulfilled;  is  it  nothing  to  us  to 
know  that  Jeremiah  was  a  true  prophet?  Do  but  grant  that  the  Su¬ 
preme  Being  communicated  to  any  of  the  sons  of  men  a  knowledge 
of  future  events,  so  that  their  predictions  were  plainW  verified,  and 
you  will  find  little  difficulty  in  admitting  the  truth  of  revealed  reli¬ 
gion.  Is  it  nothing  to  us  to  know,  that,  five  hundred  and  thirty-six 
years  before  Christ,  the  books  of  Chronicles,  Kings,  Judges,  Joshua, 
Deuteronomy,  Numbers,  Leviticus,  Exodus,  Genesis,  every  book 
the  authority  of  which  you  have  attacked,  are  all  referred  to  by 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  as  authentic  books,  containing  the  histoiy  of 
the  Israelitish  nation  from  Abraham  to  that  very  time  ?  Is  it  nothing 
to  us  to  know  that  the  history  of  the  Jews  is  true  ?  It  is  every  thing 
to  us ;  for  if  that  history  be  not  true,  Christianity  must  be  false. 
The  Jews  are  the  root,  we  are  the  branches  “  graffed  in  amongst 
them to  them  pertain  “  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  cove¬ 
nants,  and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the 
promises  ;  whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom,  as  concerning  the 
flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever.  Amen.” 

The  history  of  the  Old  Testament  has,  without  doubt,  some  diffi¬ 
culties  in  it ;  but  a  minute  philosopher,  who  busies  himself  in  search¬ 
ing  them  out,  whilst  he  neglects  to  contemplate  the  harmony  of  all 
its  parts,  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God  displayed  throughout  the 
whole,  appears  to  me  to  be  like  a  purblind  man,  who,  in  surveying 
a  picture,  objects  to  the  simplicity  of  the  design,  and  the  beauty  of 
the  execution,  from  the  asperities  he  has  discovered  in  the  canvas 
and  the  coloring.  The  history  of  the  Old  Testament,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  real  difficulties  which  occur  in  it,  notwithstanding  the  scoffs 
and  cavils  of  unbelievers,  appears  to  me  to  have  such  internal  evi¬ 
dences  of  its  truth,  to  be  so  corroborated  by  the  most  ancient  pro¬ 
fane  histories,  so  confirmed  by  the  present  circumstances  of  the 
world,  that  if  I  were  not  a  Christian,  I  would  become  a  Jew.  You 
think  this  history  to  be  a  collection  of  lies,  contradictions,  blasphe¬ 
mies  ;  I  look  upon  it  to  be  the  oldest,  the  truest,  the  most  compre¬ 
hensive,  and  the  most  important  history  in  the  world.  I  consider  it 
as  giving  more  satisfactory  proofs  of  the  being  and  attributes  of 


135 


for  the  Bible. 

God,  of  the  origin  and  end  of  human  kind,  than  ever  were  attained 
by  the  deepest  researches  of  the  most  enlightened  philosophers. 
The  exercise  of  our  reason  in  the  investigation  of  truths  respecting 
the  nature  of  God,  and  the  future  expectations  of  human  kind,  is 
highly  useful ;  but  1  hope  I  shall  be  pardoned  by  the  metaphysi¬ 
cians  in  saying,  that  the  chief  utility  of  such  disqtiisitions  consists  in 
this,  that  they  bring  its  acquainted  with  the  weakness  of  our  intel¬ 
lectual  faculties.  I  do  not  presume  to  measure  other  men  by  my 
standard ;  you  may  have  clearer  notions  than  I  am  able  to  form  of 
the  infinity  of  space ;  of  the  eternity  of  duration ;  of  necessary  ex¬ 
istence  ;  of  the  connexion  -between  necessary  existence  and  intelli¬ 
gence,  between  intelligence  and  benevolence :  you  may  see  nothing 
in  the  universe  but  organized  matter;  or,  rejecting  a  material,  you 
may  see  nothing  but  an  ideal  world.  With  a  mind  weary  of  con¬ 
jecture,  fatigued  by  doubt,  sick  of  disputation,  eager  for  knowledge, 
anxious  for  certainty,  and  unable  to  attain  it  by  the  best  use  of  my 
reason  in  matters  of  the  utmost  importance,  I  have  long  ago  turned 
my  thoughts  to  an  impartial  examination  of  the  proofs  on  which  re¬ 
vealed  religion  is  grounded,  and  I  am  convinced  of  its  truth.  This 
examination  is  a  subject  within  the  reach  of  human  capacity ;  you 
have  come  to  one  conclusion  respecting  it,  I  have  come  to  another ; 
both  of  us  cannot  be  right ;  may  God  forgive  him  that  is  in  an 
error! 

You  ridicule,  in  a  note,  the  story  of  an  angel  appearing  to  Joshua. 
Your  mirth  you  will  perceive  to  be  misplaced,  when  you  consider 
the  design  of  this  appearance :  it  was  to  assure  Joshua,  that  the 
same  God  w'ho  had  appeared  to  Moses,  ordering  him  to  pull  off  his 
shoes,  because  he  stood  on  holy  ground,  had  now  appeared  to  him¬ 
self  Was  this  no  encouragement  to  a  man  who  was  about  to  en¬ 
gage  in  war  with  many  nations  ?  Had  it  no  tendency  to  confirm  his 
faith  ?  Was  it  no  lesson  to  him  to  obey,  in  all  things,  the  commands 
of  God,  and  to  give  the  glory  of  his  conquests  to  the  author  of  them, 
the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob?  As  to  your  wdt  about  pull¬ 
ing  off  the  shoe,  it  originates,  I  think,  in  your  ignorance  ;  you  ought 
to  have  known,  that  this  rite  was  an  indication  of  reverence  for  the 
Divine  presence ;  and  that  the  custom  of  entering  barefoot  into  their 
temples  subsists,  in  some  countries,  to  this  day. 

You  allow  the  book  of  Ezra  to  be  a  genuine  book ;  but,  that  the 
author  of  it  may  not  escape  without  a  blow,  you  say,  that  in  mat¬ 
ters  of  record  it  is  not  to  be  depended  on ;  and,  as  a  proof  of  your 
assertion,  you  tell  us,  that  the  total  amount  of  the  numbers  who  re¬ 
turned  from  Babylon  does  not  correspond  with  the  particulars ;  and, 
tliat  every  child  may  have  an  argument  for  its  infidelity,  you  dis¬ 
play  the  particulars,  and  show  your  own  skill  in  arithmetic,  by  sum¬ 
ming  them  up.  And  can  you  suppose  that  Ezra,  a  man  of  great 
learning,  knew  so  little  of  science,  so  little  of  the  lowest  branch  of 
science,  that  he  could  not  give  his  readers  the  sum-total  of  sixty  par¬ 
ticular  sums  ?  You  know,  undoubtedly,  that  the  Hebrew  letters  de¬ 
noted  also  numbers ;  and  that  there  was  such  a  great  similarity  be¬ 
tween  some  of  these  letters,  that  it  w'as  extremely  easy  for  a  Iran- 


136 


Watson"' s  Apology 

scriber  of  a  manuscript  to  mistake  a  heih  for  a  caph*  (or  2  for  20),  a 
gimel  for  a  nunf  (or  3  for  50),  a  daletli  for  a  resch\  (or  6  for  200.) 
Now  what  have  we  to  do  with  numerical  contradictions  in  the 
Bible,  but  to  attribute  them,  wherever  they  occur,  to  this  obvious 
source  of  error  ;  the  inattention  of  the  transcriber  in  writing  one 
letter  for  another  that  was  like  it  ? 

I  should  extend  these  Letters  to  a  length  troublesome  to  the  read¬ 
er,  to  you,  and  to  myself,  if  I  answered  minutely  every  objection 
you  have  made,  and  rectified  every  error  into  which  you  have 
fallen ;  it  may  be  sufficient  briefly  to  notice  some  of  the  chief.  The 
character  represented  in  Job  under  the  name  of  Satan  is,  you  say, 
“  the  first  and  the  only  time  this  name  is  mentioned  in  the  Bible.” 
Now  I  find  this  name,  as  denoting  an  enemy,  frequently  occurring 
in  the  Old  Testament ;  thus  2  Sam.  xix.  22,  “  What  have  I  to  do 
with  you,  ye  sons  of  Zeruiah,  that  ye  should  this  day  be  adversaries 
unto  me  ?”  In  the  original  it  is  satans  unto  me.  Again,  1  Kings  v. 
4.  “  The  Lord  my  God  hath  given  me  rest  on  every  side,  so  that 
there  is  neither  adversary  nor  evil  occurrent” — in  the  original,  nei¬ 
ther  satan  nor  evil.  I  need  not  mention  other  places ;  these-  are 
sufficient  to  show,  that  the  word  satan,  denoting  an  adversary,  does 
occur  in  various  places  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  it  is  extremely 
probable  to  me,  that  the  root  satan  was  introduced  into  the  Hebrew 
and  other  eastern  languages,  to  denote  an  adversary,  from  its  hav¬ 
ing  been  the  proper  name  of  the  great  enemy  of  mankind.  I  know 
it  is  an  opinion  of  Voltaire,  that  the  word  satan  is  not  older  than  the 
Babylonian  captivity ;  this  is  a  mistake,  for  it  is  met  with  in  the 
hundred  and  ninth  Psalm,  which  all  allow  to  have  been  written  by 
David,  long  before  the  captivity.  Now  we  are  upon  this  subject, 
permit  me  to  recommend  to  your  consideration  the  universality  of 
the  doctrine  concerning  an  evil  being,  who  in  the  beginning  of 
time  had  opposed  himself,  who  still  continues  to  oppose  himself,  to 
the  supreme  source  of  all  good.  Amongst  all  nations,  in  all  ages, 
this  opinion  prevailed,  that  human  affairs  were  subject  to  the  will 
of  the  gods,  and  regulated  by  their  interposition.  Hence  has  been 
derived  whatever  we  have  read  of  the  wandering  stars  of  the 
Chaldeans,  two  of  them  beneficent,  and  two  malignant ;  hence  the 
Egyptian  Typho  and  Osiris ;  the  Persian  Arimanius  and  Oromas- 
des ;  the  Grecian  celestial  and  infernal  Jove ;  the  Brama  and  the 
Zupay  of  the  Indians,  Peruvians,  and  Mexicans  ;  the  good  and  evil 
principle,  by  whatever  names  they  may  be  called,  of  all  other  bar- 
bai'ous  nations  ;  and  hence  the  structure  of  the  whole  book  of  Job, 
in  whatever  light,  of  history  or  drama,  it  may  be  considered.  Now 
does  it  not  appear  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  an  opinion  so  ancient 
and  universal  has  arisen  from  tradition  concerning  the  fall  of  our 
first  parents ;  disfigured,  indeed,  and  obscured,  as  all  traditions  must 
be,  by  many  fabulous  additions  ? 

The  Jews,  you  tell  us,  “  never  prayed  but  when  they  were  in 
trouble.”  I  do  not  believe  this  of  the  Jews  ;  but  that  they  prayed 


t  J  J 


t  n 


137 


for  the  Bible. 

more  fervently  when  they  were  in  trouble  than  at  other  times,  may 
be  true  of  the  Jews,  and  I  apprehend  is  true  of  all  nations  and  all 
individuals.  But  “  the  Jews  never  prayed  for  any  thing  but  victory, 
vengeance,  and  riches.”  Read  Solomon’s  prayer  at  the  dedication 
of  the  temple,  and  blush  for  your  assertion,  illiberal  and  uncharitable 
in  the  extreme ! 

It  appears,  you  observe,  “  to  have  been  the  custom  of  the  heathens 
to  personify  both  virtue  and  vice,  by  statues  and  images,  as  is  done 
now-a-days  both  by  statuary  and  by  painting ;  but  it  does  not  follow 
from  this  that  they  worshipped  them  any  more  than  we  do.”  Not 
worshipped  them!  Wliat  think  you  of  the  golden  image  which 
Nebuchadnezzar  set  up  ?  Was  it  not  worshipped  by  the  princes, 
the  rulers,  the  judges,  the  people,  the  nations,  and  the  languages  of 
the  Babylonian  empire?  Not  worshipped  them!  What  think  you 
of  the  decree  of  the  Roman  senate  for  fetching  the  statue  of  the 
mother  of  the  gods  from  Pessinum?  Was  it  only  that  they  might 
admire  it  as  a  piece  of  workmanship?  Not  worshipped  them! 
“  What  man  is  there,  that  knoweth  not,  how  that  the  city  of  the 
Ephesians  was  a  worshipper  of  the  ^eat  goddess  Diana,  and  of  the 
image  which  fell  down  from  Jupiter?”  Not  worshipped  them! 
The  worship  was  universal.  “Every  nation  made  gods  of  their 
own,  and  put  them  in  the  houses  of  the  high  places,  which  the  Sa¬ 
maritans  had  made ;  the  men  of  Babylon  made  Succoth-benoth,  and 
the  men  of  Cuth  made  NergaJ,  and  the  men  of  Hamath  made 
Ashima,  and  the  Avites  made  Nibhaz  and  Tartak,  and  the  Sephar- 
vites  burned  their  children  in  fire  to  Adrammelech,  and  Anamme- 
lech,  the  gods  of  Sepharvaim.”  (2  Kings,  chap,  xvii.)  The  heathens 
are  much  indebted  to  you  for  this  your  curious  apology  for  their 
idolatry ;  for  a  mode  of  worship  the  most  cruel,  senseless,  impure, 
abominable,  that  can  possibly  disgrace  the  faculties  of  the  human 
mind.  Had  this  your  conceit  occurred  in  ancient  times,  it  might 
have  saved  Micah’s  teraphims,  the  golden  calves  of  Jeroboam  and 
of  Aaron,  and  quite  superseded  the  necessity  of  the  second  com¬ 
mandment! !  !  Heathen  morality  has  had  its  advocates  before  you  ; 
the  facetious  gentleman  who  pulled  off  his  hat  to  the  statue  ol  Ju¬ 
piter,  that  he  might  have  a  friend  Avhen  heathen  idolatry  should 
again  be  in  repute,  seems  to  have  had  some  loundation  for  his  im¬ 
proper  humor,  some  knowledge,  that  certain  men,  esteeming  them¬ 
selves  great  philosophers,  had  entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  abolish 
Christianit}',  some  foresight  of  the  consequences  which  will  certain¬ 
ly  attend  their  success. 

It  is  an  error,  you  say,  to  call  the  Psalms — the  Psalms  of  David. 
This  error  was  observed  by  St.  Jerome,  many  hundred  years  before 
you  were  born ;  his  words  are :  “  We  know  that  they  are  in  an  er¬ 
ror  who  attribute  all  the  Psalms  to  David.”  You,  I  suppose,  yvdll 
not  deny,  that  David  wrote  some  of  them.  Songs  are  of  various 
sorts  ;  we  have  hunting  songs,  drinking  songs,  lighting  songs,  love 
songs,  foolish,  wanton,  wicked  songs.  If  you  will  have  the  “  Psalms 
of  David  to  be  nothing  but  a  collection  from  different  song- writers,” 
you  must  allow  that  the  writers  of  them  were  inspired  by  no  ordi- 
M  2 


138 


Watsoii's  Apology 

nary  spirit ;  that  it  is  a  collection,  incapable  of  being  degraded  by 
the  name  you  give  it ;  that  it  greatly  excels  eveiy  other  collection, 
in  matter  and  in  manner.  Compare  the  book  of  Psalms  with  the 
odes  of  Horace  or  Anacreon,  with  the  hymns  of  Callimachus,  the 
golden  verses  of  Pythagoras,  the  choruses  of  the  Greek  tragedians 
(no  contemptible  compositions  any  of  these),  and  you  will  quitikly 
see  how  greatly  it  surpasses  them  all,  in  piety  of  sentiment,  in 
sublimity  of  expression,  in  purity  of  morality,  and  in  rational  theology. 

As  you  esteem  the  Psalms  of  David  a  song-book,  it  is  consistent 
enough  in  you  to  esteem  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon  a  jest-book  ;  there 
have  not  come  down  to  us  above  eight  hundred  of  his  jests;  if  we 
had  the  whole  three  thousand,  which  he  wrote,  our  mirth  w'ould 
be  extreme.  Let  us  open  the  book,  and  see  what  kind  of  jests  it 
contains ;  take  the  very  first  as  a  specimen :  “  The  fear  of  the  Lord 
is  the  beginning  of  knowledge ;  but  fools  despise  wisdom  and  in¬ 
struction.”  Do  you  perceive  any  jest  in  this  ?  The  fear  of  the  Lord ! 
What  Lord  does  Solomon  mean  ?  He  means  that  Lord,  who  took 
the  posterity  of  Abraham  to  be  his  peculiar  people ;  who  redeemed 
that  people  from  Egyptian  bondage  by  a  miraculous  interposition 
of  his  power ;  who  gave  the  law  to  Moses ;  who  commanded  the 
Israelites  to  exterminate  the  nations  of  Canaan.  Now  this  Lord  you 
will  not  fear ;  the  jest  says,  you  despise  wisdom  and  instruction. 
Let  us  try  again :  “  IVfy  son,  hear  the  instruction  of  thy  father,  and 
forsake  not  the  law  of  thy  mother.”  If  your  heart  has  been  ever 
touched  by  parental  feelings,  you  will  see  no  jest  in  this.  Once 
more  :  “  My  son,  if  sinners  entice  thee,  consent  thou  not.”  These 
are  the  three  first  proverbs  in  Solomon’s  “jest-book;”  if  you  read 
it  through,  it  may  not  make  you  merry ;  I  hope  it  will  make  you 
wise  ;  that  it  will  teach  you,  at  least,  the  beginning  of  wisdom  ;  the 
fear  of  that  Lord  wLom  Solomon  feared.  Solomon,  you  tell  us, 
was  witty ;  jesters  are  sometimes  witty ;  but  though  all  the  world, 
from  the  time  of  the  queen  of  Sheba,  has  heard  of  the  w  isdom  of 
Solomon,  his  wit  was  never  heard  of  before.  There  is  a  great  dif¬ 
ference,  Mr.  Locke  teaches  us,  between  wit  and  judgment,  and 
there  is  a  greater  between  wit  and  wisdom.  Solomon  “  was  wiser 
limn  Ethan  the  Ezahite,  and  Heman,  and  Chalcol,  and  Darda,  the 
sons  of  Mahol.”  These  men  you  may  think  W'ere  jesters  ;  and  so 
may  you  call  the  seven  wase  men  of  Greece  :  but  you  will  never 
convince  the  world,  that  Solomon,  who  was  wiser  than  them  all, 
was  nothing  but  a  witty  jester.  As  to  the  sins  and  debaucheries 
of  Solomon,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  them  but  to  avoid  them  ; 
and  to  give  full  credit  to  his  experience,  when  he  preaches  to  us  his 
almirable  sermon  on  the  vanity  of  every  thing  but  piety  and  virtue. 

Isaiah  has  a  greater  share  of  your  abuse  than  any  other  writer 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  reason  of  it  is  obvious  :  the  prophe¬ 
cies  of  Isaiah  have  received  such  a  full  and  circumstantial  comple¬ 
tion,  that,  unless  you  can  persuade  yourself  to  consider  the  whole 
book  (a  few  historical  sketches  excepted)  “  as  one  continued  bom- 
basiical  rant,  full  of  extravagant  metaphor,  without  application,  and 
destitute  of  meaning,”  you  must  of  necessity  allow  its  divine  au- 


139 


fur  the  Bible. 

ihority.  You  compare  the  burthen  of  Babylon,  the  burthen  of 
Moab,  the  burthen  of  Damascus,  and  the  other  denunciations  of  the 
prophet  against  cities  and  kingdoms,  to  the  story  “.of  the  Knight  of 
the  Burning  Mountain,  the  story  of  Cinderella,”  &c.  I  may  have 
read  these  stories,  but  I  remember  nothing  of  the  subjects  of  them ; 

I  have  read  also  Isaiah’s  burthen  of  Babylon,  and  I  have  compared 
it  with  the  past  and  present  state  of  Babylon,  and  the  comparison 
lias  made  such  an  impression  on  my  mind,  that  it  will  never  be  ef¬ 
faced  from  my  memoiy.  I  shall  never  cease  to  believe,  that  the 
Eternal  alone,  by  whom  things  future  are  more  distinctly  known 
than  past  or  present  things  are  by  man,  that  the  eternal  God  alone 
could  have  dictated  to  the  prophet  Isaiah  the  subject  of  the  burthen 
of  Babvlon. 

The  tatter  part  of  the  forty-fourth,  and  the  beginning  of  the  forty- 
filth  chapter  of  Isaiah,  arc,  m  your  opinion,  so  far  from  being  writ¬ 
ten  by  Isaiah,  that  they  could  only  have  been  written  by  some  per¬ 
son  who  lived  at  least  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  Isaiah  was 
dead.  These  chapters,  you  go  on,  “  are  a  compliment  to  Cyrus, 
who  pennitted  the  Jews  to  return  to  Jerusalem  from  the  Babylonian 
captivity  above  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the  death  of 
Isaiah ;  and  is  it  for  this.  Sir,  that  you  accuse  the  church  of  auda¬ 
city  and  the  priests  of  ignorance,  in  imposing,  as  you  call  it,  this 
book  upon  the  world  as  the  writing  of  Isaiah  ?  What  shall  be  said 
of  you,  who,  either  designedly  or  ignorantly,  represent  one  of  the 
most  clear  and  important  prophecies  in  the  Bible,  as  an  historical 
compliment,  written  above  an  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the 
death  of  the  prophet  ?  We  contend.  Sir,  that  this  is  a  prophecy,  and 
not  a  history ;  that  God  called  Cyrus  by  his  name,  declared  that 
he  should  conquer  Babylon,  and  described  the  means  by  which  he 
should  do  it,  above  an  hundred  years  before  Cyrus  was  born,  and 
when  there  was  no  probability  of  such  an  event.  Porphyry  could 
not  resist  the  evidence  of  Daniel’s  prophecies,  but  by  saying  that 
they  Vvere  forged  after  the  events  predicted  had  taken  place ;  Vol¬ 
taire  could  not  resist  the  evidence  of  the  prediction  of  Jesus,  con¬ 
cerning  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  but  by  saying,  that  the  ac¬ 
count  was  written  after  Jerusalem  had  been  destroyed ;  and  you, 
at  length  (though  for  aught  I  know,  you  may  have  had  predecessors 
in  this  presumption),  unable  to  resist  the  evidence  of  Isaiah’s  pro¬ 
phecies,  contend,  that  they  are  bombastical  rant,  without  application, 
though  the  application  is  circumstantial ;  and  destitute  of  meaning, 
though  the  meaning  is  so  obvious  that  it  cannot  be  mistaken ;  and 
that  one  of  the  most  remarkable  of  them  is  not  a  prophecy,  but  an 
historical  compliment  written  after  the  event.  We  will  not,  Sir, 
give  up  Daniel  and  St.  Matthew  to  the  impudent  assertions  of  Por¬ 
phyry  and  Voltaire,  nor  will  we  give  up  Isaiah  to  your  assertion. 
Proof,  proof  is  w'hat  we  require,  and  not  assertion ;  we  will  not  re¬ 
linquish  our  religion  in  obedience  to  your  abusive  assertion  respect¬ 
ing  the  prophets  of  God.  That  the  wonderful  absurdity  of  this 
hvpothesis  may  be  more  obvious  to  you,  I  beg  you  to  consider,  that 
%  ru,*!  ’i’i-as  a  Persian,  had  been  brought  up  in  the  religion  of  hi^ 


140 


Walson^s  Apology 

country,  and  was  probably  addicted  to  the  magian  superstition  of 
two  independent  beings,  equal  in  power,  but  ditlerent  in  principle, 
one  the  author  of  light  and  of  all  goodj  the  other  the  author  of 
darkness  and  all  evil.  Now  is  it  probable,  that  a  captive  Jew', 
meaning  to  compliment  the  greatest  prince  in  the  world,  should 
be  so  stupid  as  to  tell  the  prince  that  his  religion  was  a  lie  ?  “  I 
am  the  Lord,  and  there  is  none  else,  I  form  the  light,  and  create 
darkness,  I  make  peace  and  create  evil,  I  the  Lord  do  all  these 
things.” 

But  if  you  will  persevere  in  believing  that  the  prophecy  concern¬ 
ing  Cyrus  was  W'ritten  after  the  event,  peruse  the  burthen  of  Baby¬ 
lon  ;  was  that  also  written  after  the  event  ?  Were  the  Medes  then 
stirred  up  against  Babylon  ?  Was  Babylon,  the  glory  of  the  king¬ 
doms,  the  beauty  of  the  Chaldees,  then  overthrown,  and  become  as 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah?  Was  it  then  uninhabited?  Was  it  then 
neither  fit  for  the  Arabian’s  tent  nor  the  shepherd’s  fold  ?  Did  the 
wild  beasts  of  the  desert  then  he  there  ?  Did  the  wild  beasts  of  the 
islands  then  cry  in  their  desolate  houses,  and  dragons  in  their  pleasant 
palaces  ?  Were  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Belshazzar,  the  son  and  the 
grandson,  then  cut  off?  Was  Babylon  then  become  a  possession  of 
the  bittern,  and  pools  of  w^ater  ?  Was  it  then  swept  wdth  the  besom 
of  destruction,  so  swept  that  the  world  knows  not  now  where  to 
find  it? 

I  am  unwilling  to  attribute  bad  designs,  deliberate  wickedness,  to 
you  or  to  any  man ;  I  cannot  avoid  believing  that  you  think  you 
have  truth  on  your  side,  and  that  you  are  doing  seiwice  to  mankind 
in  endeavoring  to  root  out  what  you  esteem  superstition.  What  I 
blame  you  for  is  this :  that  you  have  attempted  to  lessen  the  au¬ 
thority  of  the  Bible  by  ridicule,  more  than  by  reason ;  that  you  have 
brought  forw'ard  every  petty  objection  which  your  ingenuity  could 
discover,  or  your  industry  pick  up,  from  the  writings  of  others ;  and, 
without  taking  any  notice  of  the  answers  which  have  been  repeat¬ 
edly  given  to  these  objections,  you  urge  and  enforce  them  as  if  they 
were  new.  There  is  certainly  some  novelty,  at  least,  in  your  man¬ 
ner,  for  you  go  beyond  all  others  in  boldness  of  assertion,  and  in 
profaneness  of  argumentation ;  Bolingbroke  and  Voltaire  must  yield 
the  palm  of  scurrility  to  Thomas  Paine. 

Permit  me  to  state  to  you  what  would,  in  my  opinion,  have  been 
a  better  mode  of  proceeding ;  better  suited  to  the  character  of  an 
honest  man,  sincere  in  his  endeavors  to  search  out  truth.  Such  a 
man,  in  reading  the  Bible,  would,  in  the  first  place,  examine 
whether  the  Bible  attributed  to  the  Supreme  Being  any  attributes 
repugnant  to  holiness,  truth,  justice,  goodness ;  whether  it  repre¬ 
sented  him  as  subject  to  human  infirmities;  whether  it  excluded 
him  from  the  government  of  the  world,  or  assigned  the  origin  of  it 
to  chance,  and  an  eternal  conflict  of  atoms.  Finding  nothing  of 
this  kind  in  the  Bible  (for  the  destruction  of  the  Canaaniles  by  his 
express  command  I  have  shown  not  to  be  repugnant  to  his  moral 
justice),  he  would,  in  the  second  place,  consider,  that  tlie  Bible 
being,  as  to  many  of  its  parts,  a  very  old  book,  and  written  by  vari- 


141 


fw  the  Bible. 

ous  authors,  and  at  different  and  distant  periods,  there  might,  proba¬ 
bly,  occur  some  difficulties  and  apparent  contradictions  in  the  his¬ 
torical  part  of  it ;  he  would  endeavor  to  remove  these  difficulties,  to 
reconcile  these  apparent  contradictions,  by  the  rules  of  such  sound 
criticism  as  he  would  use  in  examining  the  contents  of  any  other 
book ;  and  if  he  found  that  most  of  them  were  of  a  trifling  nature, 
arising  from  short  additions  inserted  into  the  text  as  explanatory  and 
supplemental,  or  from  mistakes  and  omissions  of  transcribers,  he 
would  infer,  that  all  the  rest  were  capable  of  being  accounted  for, 
though  he  was  not  able  to  do  it ;  and  he  would  be  the  more  willing 
to  make  this  concession,  from  observing,  that  there  ran  through  the 
whole  book  a  harmony  and  cormexion,  utterly  inconsistent  with 
every  idea  of  forgery  and  deceit.  He  would  then,  in  the  third 
place,  observe,  that  the  miraculous  and  historical  parts  of  this  book 
were  so  intermixed,  that  they  could  not  be  separated ;  that  they 
must  either  both  be  true,  or  both  false ;  and  from  finding  that  the 
historical  part  was  as  well  or  better  authenticated  than  that  of  any 
other  history,  he  would  admit  the  miraculous  part ;  and  to  confirm 
himself  in  this  belief,  he  would  advert  to  the  prophecies ;  well 
knowing,  that  the  prediction  of  things  to  come  w^as  as  certain  a 
proof  of  the  Divine  interposition,  as  the  performance  of  a  miracle 
could  be.  If  he  should  find,  as  he  certainly  would,  that  many  an¬ 
cient  prophecies  bad  been  fulfilled  in  all  their  circumstances,  and 
that  some  w^ere  fulfilling  at  this  very  day,  he  would  not  suffer  a  few 
seeming  or  real  difficulties  to  overbalance  the  weight  of  this  ac¬ 
cumulated  evidence  for  the  truth  of  the  Bible.  Such,  I  presume  to 
think,  would  be  a  proper  conduct  in  all  those  who  are  desirous  of 
forming  a  rational  and  impartial  judgment  on  the  subject  of  re 
vealed  religion.  To  return : 

As  to  your  observation,  that  the  book  of  Isaiah  is  (at  least  in 
translation)  that  kind  of  composition  and  false  taste,  which  is  prop¬ 
erly  called  prose  run  mad;  I  have  only  to  remark,  that  your  taste 
for  Hebrew  poetry,  even  judging  of  it  from  translation,  would  be 
more  correct  if  you  would  suffer  yourself  to  be  informed  on  the 
subject  by  Bishop  Lowdi,  who  tells  you,  in  his  Prelections,  “  that  a 
poem  translated  literally  from  the  Hebrew  into  any  other  language, 
whilst  the  same  forms  of  the  sentences  remain,  will  still  retain,  even 
as  far  as  relates  to  versification,  much  of  its  native  dignity,  and  a 
faint  appearance  of  versification.”  (Gregory’s  Translation).  If  this 
is  what  you  mean  by  prose  run  mad,  your  observation  may  be  ad¬ 
mitted.  .  T  . 

You  explain  at  some  length  your  notion  of  the  misapplication 
made  by  St.  Matthew’’  of  the  prophecy  in  Isaiah :  “  Behold,  a  virgin 
shall  conceive  and  bear  a  son.”  That  passage  has  been  handled 
largely  and  minutely  by  almost  every  commentator,  and  it  is  too  im¬ 
portant  to  be  handled  superficially  by  any  one.  I  am  not  on  the 
present  occasion  concerned  to  explain  it.  It  is  quoted  by  you  to 
prove,  and  it  is  the  only  instance  you  produce,  that  Isaiah  was  “  a 
lying  prophet  and  an  impostor.”  Now  I  maintain,  that  this  very  in¬ 
stance  proves  that  he  was  a  true  prophet,  and  no  impostor.  The  his- 


142 


Walson's  Apology 

tory  of  the  prophecy,  as  delivered  in  the  seventh  chapter,  is  this : 
Rezin,  king  of  Syria,  and  Pekah,  king  of  Israel,  made  war  upon 
Ahaz,  king  of  Judah ;  not  merely,  or  perhaps  not  at  all,  for  the  sake 
of  plunder  or  the  conquest  of  territory,  but  with  a  declared  purpose 
of  making  an  entire  revolution  in  the  government  of  Judah,  of  de¬ 
stroying  the  rojml  house  of  David,  and  of  placing  another  family  on 
the  throne.  Their  purpose  is  thus  expressed :  “  Let  us  go  up  against 
Judah,  and  vex  it,  and  let  us  make  a  breach  therein  for  us,  and  set 
a  king  in  the  midst  of  it,  even  the  son  of  Tabeal.”  Now  what  did 
the  Lord  commission  Isaiah  to  say  to  Ahaz  ?  Did  he  commission  him 
to  say,  the  kings  shall  not  vex  thee  ?  No.  The  kings  shall  not  con¬ 
quer  thee  ?  No.  The  kings  shall  not  succeed  against  thee  ?  No. 
He  commissioned  him  to  say:  “It  (the  pui’pose  of  the  two  kings) 
shall  not  stand,  neither  shall  it  come  to  pass;”  I  demand,  did  it 
stand,  did  it  come  to  pass  ?  Was  any  revolution  effected  ?  Was  the 
royal  house  of  David  dethroned  and  destroyed  ?  Was  Tabeal  ever 
made  king  of  Judah?  No.  The  prophecy  was  perfectly  accom¬ 
plished.  You  say,  “Instead  of  these  two  Kings  failing  in  their  at¬ 
tempt  against  Ahaz,  they  succeeded ;  Ahaz  was  defeated  and  de¬ 
stroyed.”  I  deny  the  fact;  Ahaz  was  defeated,  but  not  destroyed  ; 
and  even  the  “  two  hundred  thousand  women,  and  sons,  and  daugh¬ 
ters,”  whom  you  represent  as  carried  into  captivity,  were  not  car¬ 
ried  into  captivity ;  they  were  made  captives,  but  they  were  not 
carried  into  captivity ;  for  the  chief  men  of  Samaria,  being  admon¬ 
ished  by  a  prophet,  would  not  suffer  Pekah  to  bring  the  captives 
into  the  land;  “They  rose  up,  and  took  the  captives,  and  wath  the 
spoil  clothed  all  that  were  naked  among  them,  and  arrayed  them, 
and  shod  them,  and  gave  them  to  eat  and  to  drink,  and  anointed 
them,  and  carried  all  the  feeble  of  them  upon  asses  (some  humanity, 
you  see,  amongst  those  Israelites,  whom  you  everywhere  represent 
as  barbarous  brutes),  and  brought  them  to  Jericho,  the  city  of  palm- 
trees,  to  their  brethren.”  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  15.)  The  kings  did  fail  in 
their  attempt ;  their  attempt  was  to  destroy  the  house  of  David,  and 
to  make  a  revolution ;  but  they  made  no  revolution,  they  did  not 
destroy  the  house  of  David ;  for  Ahaz  slept  with  his  fathers,  and 
Ilezekiah,  his  son,  of  the  house  of  David,  reigned  in  his  stead. 


LETTER  VI. 

After  wdiat  I  conceive  to  be  a  great  misrepresentation  of  the 
character  and  conduct  of  Jeremiah,  you  bring  forward  an  objection, 
which  Spinoza  and  others  before  you  had  much  insisted  upon,  though 
it  is  an  objection  which  neither  affects  the  genuineness,  nor  the  au¬ 
thenticity,  of  the  book  of  Jeremiah,  any  more  than  the  blunder  of  a 
bookbinder,  in  misplacing  the  sheets  of  your  performance,  would 
lessen  its  authority.  The  objection  is,  that  the  book  of  Jeremiah 


143 


for  the  Bible. 

has  been  put  together  in  a  disordered  state.  It  is  acknowledged, 
that  the  order  of  time  is  not  everywhere  observed ;  but  the  cause 
of  the  confusion  is  not  known.  Some  attribute  it  to  Baruch  collect¬ 
ing  into  one  volume  all  the  several  prophecies  which  Jeremiah  had  ' 
written,  and  neglecting  to  put  them  in  their  proper  places.  Others 
think,  that  the  several  parts  of  the  work  were  at  first  properly  ar¬ 
ranged,  but  that  through  accident,  or  the  carelessness  of  transcri¬ 
bers,  they  were  deranged.  Others  contend,  that  there  is  no  confu¬ 
sion  ;  that  prophecy  differs  from  history,  in  not  being  subject  to  an 
accurate  observance  of  time  and  order.  But  leaving  this  matter  to 
be  settled  by  critical  discussion,  let  us  come  to  a  matter  of  greater 
importance ;  to  your  charge  against  Jeremiah  for  his  duplicity,  and 
for  his  false  prediction.  First,  as  to  his  duplicity  : 

Jeremiah,  on  account  of  his  having  boldly  predicted  the  destruc¬ 
tion  of  Jerusalem,  had  been  thrust  into  a  miry  dungeon  by  the 
princes  of  Judah  who  sought  his  life  ;  there  he  would  have  perish¬ 
ed,  had  not  one  of  the  eunuchs  taken  compassion  on  him,  and  pe¬ 
titioned  king  Zedekiah  in  his  favot,  saying,  “  These  men  (the  princes) 
have  done  evil  in  all  that  they  have  done  to  Jeremiah  the  prophet 
(no  small  testimony  this,  of  the  probity  of  the  prophet’s  character), 
whom  they  have  cast  into  the  dungeon,  and  he  is  like  to  die  for 
hunger.”  On  this  representation  Jeremiah  was  taken  out  of  the 
dungeon  by  an  order  from  the  king,  who  soon  afterwards  sent  pri¬ 
vately  for  him,  and  desired  him  to  conceal  nothing  from  him,  bind¬ 
ing  himself  by  an  oath,  that,  whatever  might  be  the  nature  of  his 
prophecy,  he  w'ould  not  put  him  to  death,  or  deliver  him  into  the 
hands  of  the  princes  who  sought  his  life.  Jeremiah  delivered  to 
him  the  purpose  of  God  respecting  the  fate  of  Jerusalem.  The 
conference  being  ended,  the  king,  anxious  to  perform  his  oath,  to 
preserve  the  life  of  the  prophet,  dismissed  him,  saying,  “  Let  no 
man  know  of  these  words,  and  thou  shalt  not  die.  But  if  the  princes 
hear  that  I  have  talked  with  thee,  and  they  come  unto  thee,  and 
say  unto  thee,  Declare  unto  us  now  what  thou  hast  said  unto  the 
king,  hide  it  not  from  us,  and  we  will  not  put  thee  to  death ;  also 
what  the  king  said  unto  thee :  then  thou  shalt  say  unto  them,  I  pre¬ 
sented  my  supplication  before  the  king,  that  he  would  not  cause  me 
to  return  to  Jonathan’s  house  to  die  there.  Then  came  all  the 
princes  unto  Jeremiah,  and  asked  him,  and  he  told  them  according 
to  all  these  "words  that  the  king  had  commanded.”  Thus,  you  re¬ 
mark,  “  this  man  of  God,  as  he  is  called,  could  tell  a  lie,  or  very 
strongly  prevaricate ;  for  certainly  he  did  not  go  to  Zedekiah  to 
make  his  supplication,  neither  did  he  make  it.”  It  is  not  said  that 
he  told  the  princes  he  went  to  make  his  supplication,  but  that  he 
presented  it:  now  it  is  said  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  he  did 
make  the  supplication,  and  it  is  probable  that  in  this  conference  he 
renewed  it ;  but  be  that  as  it  may,  I  contend  that  Jeremiah  wms  not 
guilty  of  dmJicity,  or,  in  more  intelligible  terms,  that  he  did  not 
violate  any  law  of  nature,  or  of  civil  society,  in  what  he  did  on 
this  occasion.  He  told  the  truth,  in  part,  to  save  his  life ;  and  he 
was  under  no  obligation  to  tell  the  whole  to  men  who  were  certain- 


144 


Watsoii's  Apology 

ly  his  enemies,  and  no  good  subjects  to  his  Idng.  “  In  a  matter 
(says  Puffendorf),  which  I  am  not  obliged  to  declare  to  another,  if  I 
cannot,  with  safety,  conceal  the  whole,  I  may  fairly  discover  no 
more  than  a  part.”  Was  Jeremiah  under  any  obligation  to  declare 
to  the  princes  what  had  passed  in  his  conference  with  the  king  ? 
You  may  as  well  say,  that  the  House  of  Lords  has  a  right  to  compel 
privy  counsellors  to  reveal  the  king’s  secrets.  The  king  cannot 
justly  require  a  privy  counsellor  to  tell  a  lie  for  him;  but  he  may 
require  him  not  to  divulge  his  counsels  to  those  who  have  no  right 
to  know  them.  Now  for  the  false  prediction :  I  will  give  the  de¬ 
scription  of  it  in  your  own  words : 

“In  the  34th  chapter  is  a  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  to  Zedekiah,  in 
these  words,”  ver.  2.  ‘  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Behold,  I  will  give  this 
city  into  the  hands  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  will  bum  it  with 
fire;  and  thou  shalt  not  escape  out  of  his  hand,  but  thou  shalt  surely 
be  taken,  and  delivered  into  his  hand ;  and  thine  eyes  shall  behold 
the  eyes  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  he  shall  speak  with  thee 
mouth  to  mouth,  and  thou  shaft  go  to  Babylon.  Yet  hear  the  word 
of  the  Lord,  O  Zedekiah,  king  of  Judah ;  thus  saith  the  Lord,  Thou 
shalt  not  die  by  the  sword,  but  thou  shalt  die  in  peace  ;  and  with 
the  burnings  of  thy  fathers,  the  former  lungs  that  were  before  thee, 
so  shall  they  bum  odors  for  thee,  and  will  lament  thee,  saying.  Ah, 
-Lord !  for  I  have  pronounced  the  word,  saith  the  Lord.’ 

“Now,  instead  of  Zedekiah  beholding  the  eyes  of  the  king  of 
Babylon,  and  speaking  with  him  mouth  to  mouth,  and  dying  in 
peace,  and  with  the  burning  of  odors,  as  at  the  funeral  of  his  fathers 
(as  Jeremiah  had  declared  the  Lord  himself  had  pronounced),  the 
reverse,  according  to  the  52d  chapter,  was  the  case ;  it  is  there 
stated,  verse  10,  ‘  That  the  king  of  Babylon  slew  the  sons  of  Zede¬ 
kiah  before  his  eyes ;  then  he  put  out  the  eyes  -of  Zedekiah,  and 
bound  him  in  chains,  and  carried  him  to  Babylon,  and  put  him  in 
prison  till  the  day  of  his  death.’  What  can  we  say  of  these  proph¬ 
ets,  but  that  they  are  impostors  and  liars  ?”  I  can  say  this,  that 
the  prophecy  you  have  produced  was  fulfilled  in  all  its  parts  :  and 
what  then  shall  be  said  of  those  who  call  Jeremiah  a  liar  and  an 
impostor  ?  Here  then  w'e  are  fairly  at  issue ;  you  affirm  that  the 
prophecy  was  not  fulfilled,  and  I  affirm  that  it  was  fulfilled  in  all 
its  parts.  “  I  wall  give  this  city  into  the  hands  of  the  king  of  Baby¬ 
lon,  and  he  shall  burn  it  wdth  fire  so  says  the  prophet ;  what  says 
the  history?  “They  (the  forces  of  the  king  of  Babylon)  burnt  the 
house  of  God,  and  brake  down  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  and  burnt 
all  the  palaces  thereof  with  fire.”  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  19.)  “  Thou 
shalt  not  escape  out  of  his  hand,  but  shalt  surely  be  taken,  and  de¬ 
livered  into  his  hand so  says  the  prophet ;  what  says  the  history  ? 
“  The  men  of  war  fled  by  night,  and  the  king  went  the  way  to¬ 
wards  the  plain ;  and  the  army  of  the  Chaldees  pursued  after  the 
king,  and  overtook  him  in  the  plains  of  Jericho ;  and  all  his  army 
were  scattered  from  him ;  so  they  took  the  king,  and  brought  him 
up  to  the  king  of  Babylon,  to  Riblah.”  (2  Kings  xxv.  5)  The  proph¬ 
et  gops  on,  “Thine  eyes  shall  behold  the  eyes  of  the  king  of 


145 


for  the  Bible. 

Babylon,  and  he'  shall  speak  with  thee  mouth  to  mouth.”  No 
pleasant  circumstance  this  to  Zedekiah,  who  had  provoked  the  king 
of  Babylon  by  revolting  from  him !  Tlie  history  says,  “  The  king 
of  Babylon  gave  judgment  upon  Zedekiah,”  or,  as  it  is  more  literally 
rendered  from  the  Hebrew,  “spake  judgment  with  him  at  Riblah.” 
The  prophet  concludes  this  part  with,  “And  thou  shalt  go  to  Baby¬ 
lon  ;”  the  history  says,  “  The  king  of  BabyL  »n  bound  him  in'  chains, 
and  carried  him  to  Babylon,  and  put  him  in  prison  till  the  day  of 
his  death,”  Jer.  lii.  11.  “Thou  shalt  not  die  by  the  sword.”  He 
did  not  die  by  the  sword,  he  did  not  fall  in  battle.  “  But  thou  shalt 
die  in  peace.”  He  did  die  in  peace,  he  neither  expired  on  the 
rack,  or  on  the  scaffold ;  was  neither  strangled,  nor  poisoned ;  no 
unusual  fate  of  captive  kings !  he  died  peaceably  in  his  bed,  though 
that  bed  was  in  a  prison.  “  And  with  the  burnings  of  thy  fathers 
shall  they  bum  odors  for  thee.”  I  cannot  prove  from  the  history 
that  this  part  of  the  prophecy  was  accomplished,  nor  can  you  prove 
that  it  was  not.  The  probability  is,  that  it  was  accomplished  ;  and 
I  have  two  reasons  on  which  I  ground  this  probability.  Daniel, 
Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego,  to  say  nothing  of  other  Je.ws, 
were  men  of  great  authority  in  the  court  of  the  king  of  Babylon, 
before  and  after  the  commencement  of  the  imprisonment  of  Zede¬ 
kiah  ;  and  Daniel  continued  in  power  till  the  subversion  of  the 
kingdom  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus.  Now  it  seems  to  me  to  be  very 
probable,  that  Daniel,  and  the  other  great  men  of  the  Jews,  would 
both  have  inclination  to  request,  and  influence  enough  with  the  king 
of  Babylon  to  obtain  permission  to  bury  their  deceased  prince  Zede¬ 
kiah,  after  the  manner  of  his  fathers.  But  if  there  had  been  no 
Jews  at  Babylon  of  consequence  enough  to  make  such  a  request, 
still  it  is  probable,  that  the  king  of  Babylon  would  have  ordered  the 
Jews  to  bury  and  lament  their  departed  prince,  after  the  manner 
of  their  country.  Monarchs,  hke  other  men,  are  conscious  of  the 
instability  of  human  condition ;  and  when  the  pomp  of  war  has 
ceased,  when  the  insolence  of  conquest  is  abated,  and  the  fury  of 
resentment  subsided,  they  seldom  fail  to  revere  royalty  even  in  its 
ruins,  and  grant  without  reluctance  proper  obsequies  to  the  remains 
of  captive  kings. 

You  profess  to  have  been  particular  in  treating  of  the  books  as¬ 
cribed  to  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah.  Particular!  in  what?  You  have 
particularized  two  or  three  passages,  which  you  have  endeavored 
to  represent  as  objectionable,  and  which  I  hope  have  been  shown, 
to  the  reader’s  satisfaction,  to  be  not  justly  liable  to  your  censure  ; 
and  you  have  passed  over  all  the  other  parts  of  these  books  without 
notice.  Had  you  been  particular  in  vour  examination,  you  would 
have  found  cause  to  admire  the  probity  and  the  intrepidity  of  the 
characters  of  the  authors  of  them  ;  you  would  have  met  with  many 
instances  of  sublime  composition;  and,  what  is  of  more  conse¬ 
quence,  wth  many  instances  of  prophetical  veracity.  Particulari¬ 
ties  of  these  kinds  you  have  wholly  overlooked.  I  cannot  account 
for  this ;  I  have  no  right,  no  inclination,  to  call  you  a  dishonest  man ; 
am  I  justified  in  considerinst  you  as  a  man  not  altogether  destitute 
N 


146 


Walsonh  Apology 

of  ingenuity,  but  so  entire V  under  the  dominion  of  prejudice,  in 
every  thing  respecting  the  Bible,  that,  like  a  corrupted  judge,  pre¬ 
viously  determined  to  give  sentence  on  one  side,  you  are  negligent 
in  the  examination  of  truth  ? 

You  proceed  to  the  rest  of  the  prophets,  and  you  take  them  col 
lectively,  carefully  however  selecting  for  your  observations  such 
particularities  as  are  best  calculated  to  render,  if  possible,  the 
prophets  odious  or  ridiculous  in  the  eyes  of  your  readers.  You  con¬ 
found  prophets  with  poets  and  musicians ;  I  would  distinguish  them 
thus  ;  many  prophets  were  poets  and  musicians,  but  all  poets  arid 
musicians  were  not  prophets.  Prophecies  were  often  delivered  in 
poetic  language  and  measure ;  but  flights  and  metaphors  of  the 
Jewish  poets  have  not,  as  you  affirm,  been  foolishly  erected  into 
what  are  now  called  prophecies ;  they  are  now  called,  and  have 
always  been  called,  prophecies;  because  they  were  real  predictions, 
some  of  which  have  received,  some  are  now  receiving,  and  all  will 
receive,  their  full  accomplishment. 

That  there  were  false  prophets,  witches,  necromancers,  conjurore, 
fortune-tellers,  among  the  Jew’s,  no  person  will  attempt  to  deny ; 
no  nation,  barbarous  or  civilized,  has  been  without  them  ;  but  when 
you  would  degrade  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  to  a  level 
with  these  conjuring,  dreaming,  strolling  gentry ;  w’hen  you  would 
represent  them  as  spending  their  lives  in  fortune-telling,  casting 
nativities,  predicting  riches,  fortunate  or  unfortunate  marriages,  con¬ 
juring  for  lost  goods,  &c.,  I  must  be  allowed  to  say,  that  you  wholly 
mistake  their  office,  and  misrepresent  their  character :  their  office 
was  to  convey  to  the  children  of  Israel  the  commands,  the  prom¬ 
ises,  the  threatenings  of  Almighty  God ;  and  their  character  was 
that  of  men  sustaining,  with  fortitude,  persecution  in  the  discharge 
of  their  duty.  There  were  false  prophets  in  abundance  amongst 
the  Jews ;  and  if  you  oppose  these  to  the  true  prophets,  and  call 
them  both  party  prophets,  you  have  the  liberty  of  doing  so,  but  you 
will  not  thereby  confound  the  distinction  between  truth  and  false¬ 
hood.  False  prophets  are  spoken  of  with  detestation  in  many  parts 
of  Scripture,  particularly  by  Jeremiah,  who  accuses  them  of  proph¬ 
esying  lies  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  saying,  “  1  have  dreamed,  I 
have  dreamed :  Behold,  I  am  against  the  prophets,  saith  the  Lord, 
that  use  their  tongues,  and  say.  He  saith,  that  prophesy  false  dreams, 
and  cause  my  people  to  err  by  their  lies  and  by  their  lightness.” 
Jeremiah  cautions  his  countrymen  against  giving  credit  to  their 
prophets,  to  their  diviners,  to  their  dreamers,  to  their  enchanters,  to 
their  sorcerers,  which  speak  unto  you,  saying  ;  “  Ye  shall  not  serve 
the  king  of  Babylon.”  You  cannot  think  more  contemptibly  of 
these  gentry  than  they  were  thought  of  by  the  true  prophets  at  the 
time  they  lived ;  but,  as  Jeremiah  says  on  this  subject,  “  what  is  the 
chair  to  the  wheat  ?”  what  are  the  false  prophets  to  the  true  ones  ? 
Every  thing  good  is  liable  to  abuse  ;  but  who  argues  against  the  use 
of  a  thing  from  the  abuse  of  it  ?  against  physicians,  because  there 
are  pretenders  to  physic  ?  Was  Isaiah  a  fortune-teller,  predicting 
riches,  when  he  said  to  king  Hezekiah,  “Behold,  the  days  come, 


for  the  Bible.  147 

that  all  that  is  in  thine  house,  and  that  which  thy  fathers  have  laid 
up  in  store  until  this  day,  shall  be  carried  to  Babylon :  nothing  shall 
be  left,  saith  the  Lord.  And  of  thy  sons  that  shall  issue  from  thee, 
which  thou  shalt  beget,  shall  they  take  away,  and  they  shall  be 
eunuchs  in  the  palace  of  the  king  of  Babylon.”  Fortune-tellers 
generally  predict  good  luck  to  their  simple  customers,  that  they 
may  make  something  by  their  trade ;  but  Isaiah  predicts  to  a 
monarch  desolation  of  his  country,  and  ruin  of  his  family.  This 
prophecy  was  spoken  in  the  year  before  Christ,  713 ;  and,  above  a 
hundred  years  afterwards,  it  was  accomplished  ;  when  Nebuchad¬ 
nezzar  took  Jerusalem,  and  carried  out  thence  all  the  treasures  of 
the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  the  treasures  of  the  king’s  house  (2  Kings 
xxiv.  13),  and  when  he  commanded  the  master  of  his  eunuchs  (Dan. 
i.  3),  that  he  should  take  certain  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  of  the 
king’s  seed,  and  of  the  princes,  and  educate  them  for  three  years, 
till  they  were  able  to  stand  before  the  king. 

Jehoram  king  of  Israel,  Jehoshaphat  king  of  Judah,  and  the  king 
of  Edom,  going  with  their  armies  to  make  war  on  the  king  of  Moab, 
came  into  a  place  where  there  was  no  water  either  for  their  men 
or  cattle.  In  this  distress  they  wailed  upon  Elisha  (a  high  honor 
for  one  of  your  conjurers),  by  the  advice  of  Jehoshaphat,  who  knew 
that  the  word  of  the  Lord  was  with  him.  The  prophet,  on  seeing 
Jehoram,  an  idolatrous  prince,  who  had  revolted  from  the  worship 
of  the  true  God,  come  to  consult  him,  said  to  him,  “Get  thee  to  the 
prophets  of  thy  father  and  the  prophets  of  thy  mother.”  This  you 
think  shows  Elisha  to  have  been  a  party  prophet,  full  of  venom  and 
vulgarity ;  it  shows  him  to  have  been  a  man  of  great  courage,  who 
respected  the  dignity  of  his  own  character,  the  sacredness  of  his 
office  as  a  prophet  of  God,  whose  duty  it  was  to  reprove  the  wick¬ 
edness  of  kings,  as  of  other  men.  He  ordered  them  to  make  the 
valley  where  they  were  full  of  ditches.  This,  you  say,  “evety 
countryman  coidd  have  told,  that  the  way  to  get  water  was  to  dig 
for  it.”  But  this  is  not  a  true  representation  of  the  case  :  the  ditches 
were  not  dug  that  water  might  be  gotten  by  digging  for  it,  but  that 
they  might  hold  the  water  when  it  should  miraculously  come 
“  without  wind  or  rain,”  from  another  country ;  and  it  did  come 
“  from  the  way  of  Edom,  and  the  country  was  filled  wdth  w’ater.” 
As  to  Elisha’s  cursing  the  little  children  who  had  mocked  him,  and 
their  destruction  in  consequence  of  his  imprecation,  the  whole  story 
must  be  taken  together.  The  provocation  he  received  is,  by  some, 
considered  as  an  insult  offered  to  him,  not  as  a  man  but  as  a  prophet, 
and  that  the  persons  who  offered  it  were  not  what  we  understand 
by  little  children,  but  grown-up  youths  ;  the  term  child  being  ap¬ 
plied,  in  the  Hebrew  language,  to  grown-up  persons.  Be  this  as  it 
may,  the  cursing  was  the  act  of  the  prophet ;  had  it  been  a  sin,  it 
would  not  have  been  followed  by  a  miraculous  destruction  of  the 
offenders ;  for  this  was  the  act  of  God,  who  best  knows  who  de¬ 
serve  punishment.  What  effect  such  a  signal  judgment  had  on  the 
idolatrous  inhabitants  of  the  land  is  nowhere  said ;  but  it  is  proba 
ble  it  was  not  without  a  good  effect. 


148  Walson^s  Apology 

j 

Ezekiel  and  Daniel  lived  during  the  Babylonian  captivity ;  you  j 
allow  their  writings  to  be  genuine.  In  this  you  differ  from  some 
of  the  greatest  adversaries  of  Christianity;  and  in  my  opinion  cut 
up,  by  this  concession,  the  very  root  of  your  whole  performance.  It 
is  next  to  an  impossibility  for  any  man,  who  admits  the  book  of 
Daniel  to  be  a  genuine  book,  and  who  examines  that  book  with  in¬ 
telligence  and  impartiality,  to  refuse  his  assent  to  the  truth  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  As  to  your  saying,  that  the  interpretations  which  common-  < 
tators  and  priests  have  made  of  these  books,  only  show  the  fraud, 
or  the  extreme  folly,  to  which  credulity  and  priestcraft  can  go,  I  con-  i 
sider  it  as  nothing  but  a  proof  of  the  extreme  folly  or  fraud  to  which  i 
prejudice  and  infidelity  can  carry  a  minute  philosopher.  You  pro¬ 
fess  a  fondness  for  science ;  I  will  refer  you  to  a  scientific  man,  who 
was  neither  a  commentator  nor  a  priest,  to  Ferguson.  In  a  tract 
entitled.  The  Year  of  our  Saviour’s  Crucifixion  ascertained ;  and 
the  darkness,  at  the  time  of  his  crucifixion,  proved  to  be  supernatu^ 
ral ;  this  real  philosopher  interprets  the  remarkable  prophecy  in  the 
ninth  chapter  of  Daniel,  and  concludes  his  dissertation  in  the  fol¬ 
lowing  words :  “  Thus  we  have  an  astronomical  demonstration  of 
the  truth  of  this  ancient  prophecy,  seeing  that  the  prophetic  year  of 
the  Messiah’s  being  cut  off  was  the  very  same  with  the  astronomi¬ 
cal.”  I  have  somewhere  read  an  account  of  a  solemn  disputation 
which  was  held  at  Venice,  in  the  last  century,  between  a  Jew  and 
a  Christian ;  the  Christian  strongly  argued,  from  Daniel’s  prophecy 
of  the  seventy  weeks,  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah  whom  the  Jews  i 
had  long  expected,  from  the  predictions  of  their  prophets :  the 
learned  Rabbi,  who  presided  at  this  disputation,  was  so  forcibly 
struck  by  the  argument,  that  he  put  an  end  to  the  business,  by  say¬ 
ing,  “  Let  us  shut  up  our  Bibles ;  for  if  we  proceed  in  the  examina¬ 
tion  of  this  prophecy,  it  will  make  us  all  become  Christians.”  Was 
it  a  similar  apprehension  which  deterred  you  from  so  much  as  open¬ 
ing  the  Book  of  Daniel  ?  You  have  not  produced  from  it  one  ex¬ 
ceptionable  passage.  I  hope  you  will  read  that  book  with  attention, 
with  intelligence,  and  with  an  unbiassed  mind  follow  the  advice  of  ‘ 
our  Saviour  when  he  quoted  this,  very  prophecy ;  “  Let  him  that 
readeth  understand and  I  shall  not  despair  of  your  conversion  ’ 
from  Deism  to  Christianity. 

In  order  to  discredit  the  authority  of  the  books  which  you  allow 
to  be  genuine,  you  form  a  strange  and  prodigious  hypothesis  con¬ 
cerning  Ezekiel  and  Daniel,  for  which  there  is  no  manner  of  found¬ 
ation  either  in  history  or  probability.  You  suppose  these  two  men 
to  have  had  no  dreams,  no  visions,  no  revelation  from  God  Almighty, 
but  to  have  pretended  to  these  things ;  and,  under  that  disguise,  to 
have  carried  on  an  enigmatical  correspondence  relative  to  the  re¬ 
covery  of  their  country  from  the  Babylonian  yoke.  That  any  man 
in  his  senses  should  frame  or  adopt  such  an  hypothesis,  should  have 
so  little  regard  to  his  own  reputation  as  an  impartial  inquirer  after 
truth,  so  little  respect  for  the  understanding  of  his  readers,  as  to  ob¬ 
trude  it  on  the  world,  would  have  appeared  an  incredible  circum¬ 
stance,  had  not  you  made  it  a  fact. 


149 


Jor  the  Bible. 


You  quote  a  passage  from  Ezekiel,  in  chapter  xxix.  ver.  11,  speak¬ 
ing  of  Egypt,  it  is  said :  “  No  foot  of  man  shall  pass  through  it,  nor 
foot  of  beast  shall  pass  through  it,  neither  shall  it  be  inhabited  forty 
years.”  This,  you  say,  “  never  came  to  pass,  and  consequently  it  is 
false,  as  all  the  books  I  have  already  reviewed  are.”  Now  that 
this  did  come  to  pass  we  have,  as  Bishop  Newton  observes,  “the 
testimonies  of  Megasthenes  and  Berosus,  two  heathen  historians, 
w  ho  lived  about  three  hundred  years  before  Christ ;  one  of  w^hom 
affirms,  expressly,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  conquered  the  greater  part 
of  Africa ;  and  the  other  affirms  it,  in  effect,  in  saying,  that  when 
Nebuchadnezzar  heard  of  the  death  of  his  father,  having  settled  his 
affairs  in  Egypt,  and  committed  the  captives  whom  he  took  in 
Egypt  to  the  care  of  some  of  his  friends  to  bring  them  after  him,  he 
hasted  directly  to  Babylon.”  And  if  we- had  been  possessed  of  no 
testimony  in  support  of  the  prophecy,  it  would  have  been  a  hasty 
conclusion,  that  the  prophecy  never  came  to  pass ;  the  history  of 
Eg}"pt,  at  so  remote  a  period,  being  nowhere  accurately  and  cir¬ 
cumstantially  related.  I  admit  that  no  period  can  be  pointed  out, 
from  tiie  age  of  Ezekiel  to  the  present,  in  which  there  was  no  foot 
of  man  or  beast  to  be  seen  for  forty  years  in  all  Egypt ;  but  some 
think  that  only  a  part  of  Egypt  is  here  spoken  of ;  and  surely  you 
do  not  expect  a  literal  accomplishment  of  a  hyperbolical  expres¬ 
sion,  denoting  great  desolation;  importing  that  the  trade  of  Egypt, 
which  was  carried  on  then,  as  at  present,  by  caravans,  by  the  foot 
of  man  and  beast,’  should  be  annihilated.  Had  you  taken  the 
trouble  to  have  looked  a  little  farther  into  the  book  from  which  you 


have  made  your  quotation,  you  w^ould  have  there  seen  a  prophecy 
delivered  above  two  thousand  years  ago,  and  which  has  been  ful¬ 
filling  from  that  time  to  this :  “  Egypt  shall  be  the  basest  of  the 
kingdoms,  neither  shall  it  exalt  itself  any  more  above  the  nations — 
there  shall  be  no  more  a  prince  of  the  land  of  Egypt.”  This  you 
may  call  a  dream,  a  vision,  a  lie  :  I  esteem  it  a  wonderful  prophecy ; 
for  “  as  is  the  prophecy,  so  has  been  the  event.  Egypt  was  con¬ 
quered  by  the  Babylonians ;  and  after  the  Babylonians  by  the  Per¬ 
sians,  and  after  the  Persians  it  became  subject  to  the  Macedonians, 
and  after  the  Macedonians  to  the  Romans,  and  after  the  Romans  to 
the  Saracens,  and  then  to  the  Mamalucs,  and  is  now  a  province  of 
the  Turkish  empire.” 

Suffer  me  to  produce  to  you  from  this  author,  not  an  enigmatical 
letter  to  Daniel  respeciing  the  recovery  of  Jerusalem  from  the  hands 
of  the  king  of  Babylon,  but  an  enigmatical  prophecy  concerning 
Zedekiah  the  king  of  Jerusalem,  before  it  was  taken  by  the  Chal- 
derms.  “  I  w  ill  bring  him  (Zedekiah)  to  Babylon,  to  the  land  of 
the  Chaldeans;  yet  shall  he  not  see  it,  though  he  shall  die  there.” 
How !  not  see  Babylon,  when  he  should  die  there !  How,  moreover, 
is  this  consistent,  you  may  ask,  with  w’hat  Jeremiah  had  foretold, 
that  Zedekiah  should  see  the  eyes  of  the  king  of  Babylon?  This 
darkness  of  expression,  and  apjtarent  contradiction  between  the  two 
prophets,  induced  Zedekiah,  (as  Josephus  informs  us)  to  give  no 
credit  to  either  of  them;  yet  he  unhappily  experienced,  the  fact  is 
N  2  10 


150  Watson^s  Apology 

worthy  your  observation,  the  truth  of  them  both.  He  saw  the  eyes 
of  the  king  of  Babylon,  not  at  Babylon,  but  at  Riblah ;  his  eyes 
were  there  put  out ;  and  he  was  carried  to  Babylon,  yet  he  saw  it 
not ;  and  thus  were  the  predictions  of  both  the  prophets  verified, 
and  the  enigma  of  Ezekiel  explained. 

As  to  your  wonderful  discovery,  that  the  prophecy  of  Jonah  is  a 
book  of  some  Gentile,  “  and  that  it  has  been  written  as  a  fable,  to 
expose  the  nonsense,  and  to  satirize  the  vicious  and  malignant  char¬ 
acter  of  a  Bible  prophet,  or  a  predicting  priest,”  I  shall  put  it, 
covered  with  hellebore,  for  the  service  of  its  author,  on  the  same 
shelf  with  your  hypothesis  concerning  the  conspiracy  of  Daniel  and 
Ezekiel,  and  shall  not  say  another  word  about  it. 

You  conclude  your  objections  to  the  Old  Testament  in  a  tri¬ 
umphant  style ;  an  angry  opponent  would  say,  in  a  style  of  extreme 
arrogance  and  sottish  self-sufficiency.  “I  have  gone,”  you  say, 
“  through  the  Bible  (mistaking  here,  as  in  other  places,  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament  for  the  Bible)  as  a  man  would  go  through  a  wood,  with  an  ax 
on  his  shoulders,  and  fell  trees ;  here  they  lie ;  and  the  priests,  if  they 
can,  may  replant  them.  They  may,  perhaps,  stick  them  in  the  ground, 
but  they  will  never  grow.”  And  is  it  possible,  that  you  should  think 
so  highly  of  your  performance  as  to  believe,  that  you  have  thereby 
demolished  the  authority  of  a  book,  which  Newton  himself  esteemed 
the  most  authentic  of  all  histories ;  which,  by  its  celestial  light, 
illumines  the  darkest  ages  of  antiquity ;  which  is  the  touchstone 
whereby  we  are  enabled  to  distinguish  between  true  and  fabulous 
theology,  between  the  God  of  Israel,  holy,  just,  and  good,  and  the 
impure  rabble  of  heathen '  Baalim :  which  has  been  thought,  by 
competent  judges,  to  have  afforded  matter  for  the  laws  of  Solon, 
and  a  foundation  for  the  philosophy  of  Plato ;  wfoich  has  been  illus¬ 
trated  by  the  labor  of  learning,  in  all  ages  and  countries ;  and  been 
admired  and  venerated  for  its  piety,  its  sublimity,  its  veracity,  by  all 
who  were  able  to  read  and  understand  it  ?  No,  Sir;  you  have  gone 
indeed  through  the  wood,  with  the  best  intention  in  the  world  to 
cut  it  down ;  but  you  have  merely  busied  yourself  in  exposing  to 
vulgar  contempt  a  few  unsightly  shrubs,  which  good  men  had 
wisely  concealed  from  public  view ;  you  have  entangled  yourself 
in  thickets  of  thorns  and  briers ;  you  have  lost  your  way  on  the 
mountains  of  Lebanon ;  the  goodly  cedar  trees  whereof,  lamenting 
the  madness,  and  pitying  the  blindness  of  your  rage  against  them, 
have  scorned  the  blunt  edge  and  the  base  temper  of  your  ax,  and 
laughed  unhurt  at  the  feebleness  of  your  stroke. 

In  plain  language,  you  have  gone  through  the  Old  Testament 
hunting  after  difficulties,  and  you  have  found  some  real  ones  ;  these 
you  have  endeavored  to  magnify  into  insurmountable  objections  to 
the  authority  of  the  whole  book.  When  it  is  considered,  that  the 
Old  Testament  is  composed  of  several  books,  written  by  different 
authors,  and  at  different  periods,  from  Moses  to  Malachi,  comprising 
an  abstracted  histoiy  of  a  particular  nation  for  above  a  thousand 
years,  I  think  the  real  difficulties  which  occur  in  it  are  much  fewer, 
and  of  much  less  importance,  than  could  reasonably  have  been 


/ 


for  the  Bible. 


151 


expected.  Apparent  difficulties  you  have  represented  as  real  ones, 
without  hinting  at  the  manner  in  which  they  have  been  explained. 
You  have  ridiculed  things  held  most  sacred,  and  calumniated  char¬ 
acters  esteemed  most  venerable ;  you  have  excited  the  scoffs  of  the 
profane;  increased  the  scepticism  of  the  doubtful;  shaken  the 
faith  of  the  unlearned;  suggested  cavils  to  the  “disputers  of  this 
woi-ld ;”  and  perplexed  the  minds  of  honest  men,  who  wish  to  wor¬ 
ship  the  God  of  their  fathers  in  sincerity  and  truth.  This,  and  more, 
you  have  done  in  going  through  the  Old  Testament ;  but  you  have 
not  so  much  as  glanced  at  the  great  design  of  the  whole,  at  the 
harmony  and  mutual  dependence  of  the  several  parts.  You  have 
said  notning  of  the  wisdom  of  God  in  selecting  a  particular  people 
from  the  rest  of  mankind,  not  for  their  own  sakes,  but  that  they 
might  witness  to  the  whole  world,  in  successive  ages,  his  existence 
and  attributes ;  that  they  might  be  an  instrument  of  subverting 
idolatry ;  of  declaring  the  name  of  the  God  of  Israel  throughout  the 
whole  earth.  It  was  through  this  nation  that  the  Egyptians  saw  the 
wonders  of  God ;  that  the  Canaanites  (whom  wickedness  had  made 
a  reproach  to  human  nature)  felt  his  judgments;  that  the  Baby¬ 
lonians  issued  their  decrees:  “That  none  should  dare  to  speak 
amiss  of  the  God  of  Israel ;  that  all  should  fear  and  tremble  before 
him;”  and  it  is  through  them  that  you  and  I,  and  all  the  world,  are 
not  at  this  day  worshippers  of  idols.  You  have  said  nothing  of  the 
goodness  of  God  in  promising,  that  through  the  seed  of  Abraham 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed ;  that  the  desire  of  all 
nations,  the  blessing  of  Abraham  to  the  Gentiles,  should  come.  You 
have  passed  by  all  the  prophecies  respecting  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah ;  though  they  absolutely  fixed  the  time  of  his  coming,  and 
of  his  being  cut  off;  described  his  office,  character,  condition,  suf 
ferings,  and  death,  in  so  circumstantial  a  manner,  that  we  cannot 
but  be  astonished  at  the  accuracy  of  their  completion  in  the  person 
of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  You  have  neglected  noticing  the  testimony 
of  the  whole  Jewish  nation  to  the  truth  both  of  the  natural  and 
miraculous  facts  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament.  That  we  may 
better  judge  of  the  weight  of  this  testimony,  let  us  suppose,  that 
God  should  now  manifest  himself  to  us,  as  we  contend  he  did  to  the 
Israelites  in  Egypt,  in  the  desert,  and  in  the  land  of  Canaan ;  and 
that  he  should  continue  these  manifestations  of  himself  to  our  pos¬ 
terity  for  a  thousand  years  or  more,  punishing  or  rewarding  them 
according  as  they  disobeyed  or  ob^ed  his  commands  ;  what  w'ould 
you  expect  should  be  the  issue  ?  You  would  expect  that  our  pos¬ 
terity  would,  in  the  remotest  period  of  time,  adhere  to  their  God, 
and  maintain,  against  all  opponents,  the  truth  of  the  books  in  which 
the  dispensations  of  God  to  us  and  to  our  successors  had  been  re¬ 
corded.  They  would  not  yield  to  the  objections  of  men,  who,  not 
having  experienced  the  same  Divine  government,  should,  for  want 
of  such  experience,  refuse  assent  to  their  testimony.  No ;  they 
would  be  to  the  then  surrounding  nations,  what  the  Jews  are  to  us, 
witnesses  of  the  existence,  and  of  the  moral  government,  of  God. 


152 


Watson’s  Apology 


LETTER  VIL 

“The  New  Testament,  they  tell  us,  is  founded  upon  the  prophe¬ 
cies  of  the  Old ;  if  so,  it  must  follow  the  fate  of  its  foundation.” 
Thus  you  open  your  attack  upon  the  New  Testament;  and  I  agree 
with  you,  that  the  New  Testament  must  follow  the  fate  of  the  Old; 
and  that  fate  is  to  remain  unimpaired  by  such  efforts  as  you  have 
made  against  it.  The  New  Testament,  however,  is  not  founded 
solely  on  the  prophecies  of  the  Old.  If  a  heathen  from  Athens  or 
Rome,  who  had  never  heard  of  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  had  been  an  eye-witness  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus,  he  would 
have  made  the  same  conclusion  that  the  Jew  Nicodemus  did: 
“  Rabbi,  we  know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God ;  for  no 
man  can  do  these  miracles  that  thou  doest,  except  God  be  with  him.” 
Our  Saviour  tells  the  Jews,  “  Had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would 
have  believed  me ;  for  he  wrote  of  me ;”  and  he  bids  them  search 
the  Scriptures,  for  they  testified  of  him.  But,  notwithstanding  this 
appeal  to  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  Jesus  said  to  the 
Jews,  “  Though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works  ” — “  believe 
me  for  the  very  works’  sake” — “If  had  not  done  among  them  the 
works  which  none  other  man  did,  they  had  not  had  sin.”  These  are 
sufficient  proofs,  that  the  truth  of  Christ’s  mission  was  not  even  to 
the  Jews,  much  less  to  the  Gentiles,  founded  solely  on  the  truth  of 
the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament.  So  that  if  you  could  prove 
some  of  these  prophecies  to  have  been  misapplied,  and  not  com¬ 
pleted  in  the  person  of  Jesus,  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion 
would  not  thereby  be  overturned.  That  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was 
the  person,  in  whom  all  the  prophecies,  direct  and  typical,  in  the 
Old  Testament,  respecting  the  Messiah,  were  fulfilled,  is  a  proposi¬ 
tion  founded  on  those  prophecies,  and  to  be  proved  by  comparing 
them  with  the  history  of  his  life.  That  Jesus  was  a  prophet  sent 
from  God,  is  one  proposition ;  that  Jesus  was  the  prophet,  the  Mes¬ 
siah,  is  another ;  and  though  he  certainly  was  both  a  prophet  and 
the  prophet,  yet  the  foundations  of  the  proof  of  these  propositions 
are  separate  and  distinct. 

The  mere  existence  “  of  such  a  woman  as  Mary,  and  of  such  a 
man  as  Joseph,  and  Jesus,”  is,  you  say,  a  matter  of  indifference, 
about  which  there  is  no  ground  either  to  believe  or  to  disbelieve. 
Belief  is  different  from  knowledge,  with  which  you  here  seem  to 
confound  it.  We  know  that  the  whole  is  greater  than  its  parts;  and 
we  know  that  all  the  angles  in  the  same  segment  of  a  circle  are 
equal  to  each  other;  we  have  intuition  and  demonstration  as  grounds 
of  this  knowdedge ;  but  is  tliere  no  ground  for  belief  of  past  or 
future  existence?  Is  there  no  ground  for  believing  tliat  the  sun  will 
exist  to-morrow,  and  that  your  father  existed  before  you  ?  You  con 
descend,  however,  to  think  it  probable,  that  there  were  such  per¬ 
sons  as  Mary,  Joseph,  and  Jesus;  and,  without  troubling  yourself 
about  their  existence  or  non-existenee,  assuming,  as  it  wore,  for  th 


for  the  Bible.  153 

sake  of  argument,  but  without  positively  granting  their  existence, 
you  proceed  to  inform  us,  “  that  it  is  the  fable  of  Jesus  Christ,  as 
told  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  wild  and  visionary  doctrine 
raised  thereon,”-  against  which  you  contend.  You  will  not  repute 
it  a  fable,  that  there  was  such  a  man  as  Jesus  Christ;  that  he  lived 
in  Judea  near  eighteen  hundred  years  ago  ;  that  he  went  about  do- 
good,  and  preaching,  not  only  in  the  villages  of  Galilee,  but  in 
the  city  of  Jerusalem ;  that  he  had  several  followers  who  constantly 
attended  him ;  that  he  was  put  to  death  by  Pontius  Pilate ;  that  his 
disciples  were  numerous  a  few  years  after  his  death,  not  only  in 
Judea,  but  in  Rome,  the  capital  of  the  world,  and  in  every  province 
of  the  Roman  empire ;  that  a  particular  day  has  been  observed  in  a 
religious  manner  by  all  his  followers,  in  commemoration  of  a  real 
or  supposed  resurrection ;  and  that  the  constant  celebration  of  bap¬ 
tism,  and  of  the  Lord’s  supper,  may  be  traced  back  from  the  present 
time  to  him,  as  the  author  of  those  institutions.  These  things  con¬ 
stitute,  I  suppose,  no  part  of  your  fable  ;  and  if  these  things  be  facts, 
they  will,  when  maturely  considered,  draw  after  them  so  many 
other  things  related  in  the  New  Testament  concerning  Jesus,  that 
there  will  be  left  for  your  fable  but  very  scanty  materials,  which 
will  require  great  fertility  of  invention  before  you  will  dress  them 
up  into  any  form,  which  will  not  disgust  even  a  superficial  ob¬ 
server. 

The  miraculous  conception  you  esteem  a  fable,  and  in  your  mind 
it  is  an  obscene  fable.  Impure,  indeed,  must  that  man’s  imagina¬ 
tion  be,  who  can  discover  any  obscenity  in  the  angel’s  declaration 
to  Mary.  “  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power 
of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee :  therefore  that  Holy  thing 
which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God.”  I 
wonder  you  do  not  find  obscenity  in  Genesis,  where  it  is  said,  “  The 
Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters,”  and  brought  or¬ 
der  out  of  confusion,  a  world  out  of  chaos,  by  his  fostering  influence. 
As  to  the  Christian  faith  being  built  upon  the  heathen  mythologj.% 
there  is  no  ground  whatever  for  the  assertion ;  there  would  have 
been  some  for  saying,  that  much  of  the  heathen  mythology  was 
built  upon  the  events  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament. 

You  come  now  to  a  demonstration,  or,  which  amounts  to  the 
same  thing,  to  a  proposition  which  cannot,  you  say,  be  controverted. 
First,  “  That  the  agreement  of  all  the  parts  of  a  story  does  not  prove 
that  story  to  be  true,  because  the  parts  may  agree,  and  the  whole 
may  be  false.  Secondly,  That  the  disagreement  of  the  parts  of  a 
story  proves,  that  the  whole  cannot  he  true.  The  agreement  does 
not  prove  truth,  but  the  disagreement  proves  falsehood  positively.” 
Great  use,  I  perceive,  is  to  be  made  of  this  proposition.  You  will 
pardon  my  unskilfulness  in  dialectics,  if  I  presume  to  controvert  the 
truth  of  this  abstract  proposition,  as  applied  to  any  purpose  in  life. 
The  agreement  of  the  parts  of  a  story  implies  that  the  story  has 
been  told  by,  at  least,  two  persons  (the  life  of  Doctor  Johnson,  for 
instance,  by  Sir  John  Hawkins  and  Mr.  Boswell.)  Now  I  think  it 
scarcely  possible  for  even  two  persons,  and  the  difficulty  is  increased 


154 


WatsorCs  Apology 

if  there  are  more  than  two,  to  write  the  history  of  the  life  of  any 
one  of  their  acquaintance,  without  there  being  a  considerable  dif¬ 
ference  between  them,  with  respect  to  the  number  and  order  of 
the  incidents  of  his  life.  Some  things  will  be  omitted  by  one,  and 
mentioned  by  the  other ;  some  things  will  be  briefly  touched  by 
one,  and  the  same  things  will  be  circumstantially  detailed  by  the 
other  ,•  the  same  things,  which  are  mentioned  in  the  same  way  by 
them  both,  may  not  be  mentioned  as  having  happened  exactly  at 
the  same  point  of  time,  with  other  possible  and  probable  differences. 
But  these  real  or  apparent  difficulties,  in  minute  circumstances,  wall 
not  invalidate  their  testimony  as  to  the  material  transactions  of  his 
life,  much  less  will  they  render  the  whole  of  it  a  fable.  If  several 
independent  witnesses,  of  fair  character,  should  agree  in  all  the 
parts  of  a  story  (in  testifying,  for  instance,  that  a  murder  or  a  rob¬ 
bery  was  committed  at  a  particular  time,  in  a  particular  place,  and 
by  a  certain  individual),  every  court  of  justice  in  the  world  would 
admit  the  fact,  notwithstanding  the  abstract  possibility  of  the  whole 
being  false.  Again,  if  several  honest  men  should  agree  in  saying, 
that  they  saw  the  King  of  France  beheaded,  though  they  should 
disagree  as  to  the  figure  of  the  guillotine,  or  the  size  of  his  execu¬ 
tioner,  as  to  the  King’s  hands  being  bound  or  loose,  as  to  his  being 
composed  or  agitated  in  ascending  the  scaffold,  yet  every  court  of 
justice  in  the  world  would  think,  that  such  difference,  respecting 
the  circumstances  of  the  fact,  did  not  invalidate  the  evidence  re¬ 
specting  the  fact  itself.  When  you  speak  of  the  whole  of  a  story, 
you  cannot  mean  every  particular  circumstance  connected  w'ith  the 
story,  but  not  essential  to  it ;  you  must  mean  the  pith  and  marrow 
of  the  stoiy ;  for  it  would  be  impossible  to  establish  the  truth  of 
any  fact  (of  admirals  Byng  or  Keppel,  for  example,  having  neglected 
or  not  neglected  their  duty),  if  a  disagreement  in  the  evidence  of 
witnesses,  in  minute  points,  should  be  considered  as  annihilating 
the  weight  of  their  evidence  in  points  of  importance.  In  a  word, 
the  relation  of  a  fact  differs  essentially  from  the  demonstration  of  a 
theorem.  If  one  step  is  left  out,  one  link  in  the  chain  of  ideas  con¬ 
stituting  a  demonstration  is  omitted,  the  conclusion  will  be  de¬ 
stroyed  ;  but  a  fact  may  be  established,  notwithstanding  a  disagree¬ 
ment  of  the  witnesses  in  certain  trifling  particulars  of  their  evidence 
respecting  it. 

You  apply  your  incontrovertible  proposition  to  the  genealogies  of 
Christ  given  by  Matthew  and  Luke ;  there  is  a  disagreement  be¬ 
tween  them ;  therefore,  you  say,  “  If  Matthew  speak  truth,  Luke 
speaks  falsehood ;  and  if  Luke  speak  truth,  Matthew  speaks  false¬ 
hood  ;  and  thence,  there  is  no  authority  for  believing  either ;  and 
if  they  cannot  be  believed  even  in  the  very  first  thing  they  say  and 
set  out  to  prove,  they  are  not  entitled  to  be  believed  in  any  thing 
they  say  afterwards.”  I  cannot  admit  either  your  premises  or  your 
conclusion — not  your  conclusion ;  because  two  authors,  who  differ 
in  tracing  back  the  pedigree  of  an  individual  for  above  a  thousand 
years,  cannot,  on  that  account,  be  esteemed  incompetent  to  bear 
testimony  to  the  transactions  of  his  life,  unless  an  intention  to  falsify 


155 


for  the  Bible. 

could  be  proved  against  them.  If  two  Welsh  historians  should  at 
this  time  write  the  life  of  any  remarkable  man  of  their  country, 
who  had  been  dead  twenty  or  thirty  years,  and  should,  through  dif^ 
ferent  branches  of  their  genealogical  tree,  carry  up  the  pedigree  to 
Cadwallon,  would  they,  on  account  of  that  difference,  be  discredited 
in  every  thing  they  said  ?  Might  it  not  be  believed,  that  they  gave 
the  pedigree  as  they  had  found  it  recorded  in  different  instruments, 
but  without  the  least  intention  to  write  a  falsehood  ?  I  cannot  admit 
your  premises ;  because  Matthew  speaks  truth,  and  Luke  speaks 
truth,  though  they  do  not  speak  the  same  truth ;  Matthew  giving 
the  genealogy  of  Joseph  the  reputed  father  of  Jesus,  and  Luke  giv¬ 
ing  the  genealogy  of  Mary  the  real  mother  of  Jesus.  If  you  will 
not  admit  this,  other  explanations  of  the  difficulty  might  be  given ; 
but  I  hold  it  sufficient  to  say,  that  the  authors  had  no  design  to  de¬ 
ceive  the  reader,  that  they  took  their  accounts  from  the  public 
registers,  which  were  carefully  kept ;  and  that  had  they  been  fabri¬ 
cators  of  these  genealogies,  they  would  have  been  exposed  at  the 
time  to  instant  detection ;  and  the  certainty  of  that  detection  would 
have  prevented  them  from  making  the  attempt  to  impose  a  false 
genealogy  on  the  Jewish  nation. 

But,  that  you  may  eflTectually  overthrow  the  credit  of  these  gene¬ 
alogies,  you  make  the  following  calculation : — “  From  the  birth  of 
David  to  the  birth  of  Christ  is  upwards  of  one  thousand  and  eighty 
years ;  and  as  there  were  but  twenty-seven  full  generations,  to  find 
the  average  age  of  each  person  mentioned  in  St.  Matthew’s  list  at 
the  time  his  first  son  was  born,  it  is  only  necepary  to  divide  one 
thousand  and  eighty  by  twenty-seven,  which  gives  forty  years  for 
each  person.  As  the  hfe-time  of  man  was  then  but  of  the  same  ex¬ 
tent  it  is  now,  it  is  an  absurdity  to  suppose,  that  twenty-seven  gene¬ 
rations  should  all  be  old  bachelors,  before  they  married.  So  far 
from  this  genealogy  being  a  solemn  truth,  it  is  not  even  a  reasona¬ 
ble  lie.”  This  argument  assumes  the  appearance  of  arithmetical 
accuracy,  and  the  conclusion  is  in  a  style  which  even  its  truth 
would  not  excuse ;  yet  the  argument  is  good  for  nothing,  and  the 
conclusion  is  not  true.  You  have  read  the  Bible  with  some  atten¬ 
tion  ;  and  you  are  extremely  liberal  in  imputing  to  it  lies  and  ab¬ 
surdities  ;  read  it  over  again,  especially  the  books  of  the  Chronicles, 
and  you  will  there  find,  that,  in  the  genealogical  list  of  St.  Matthew, 
three  generations  are  omitted  between  Joram  and  Ozias ;  Joram  w’^as 
the  father  of  Azariah,  Azariah  of  Joash,  Joash  of  Amaziah,  and 
Amaziah  of  Ozias.  I  inquire  not,  in  this  place,  whence  this  omis¬ 
sion  proceeded ;  whether  it  is  to  be  attributed  to  an  error  in  the 
genealogical  tables  from  whence  Matthew  took  his  account,  or  to  a 
corruption  of  the  text  of  the  evangelist ;  still  it  is  an  omission.  Now 
if  you  will  add  these  three  generations  to  the  twenty-seven  you 
mention,  and  divide  one  thousand  and  eighty  by  thirty,  you  will 
find  the  average  age  when  these  Jews  had  each  of  them  their  first 
son  born  was  thirty-six.  They  married  sooner  than  they  ought  to 
have  done,  according  to  Aristotle,  who  fixes  thirty-seven  as  the 
most  proper  age,  when  a  man  should  marry.  Nor  was  it  necessary 


156 


WatsoifCs  Apology 

that  they  should  have  been  old  bachelors,  though  each  of  them  had 
not  a  son  to  succeed  him  till  he  was  thirty-six ;  they  might  have 
been  married  at  twenty,  without  having  a  son  till  they  were  forty. 
You  assume  in  your  argument,  that  the  first-born  son  succeeded  the 
father  in  the  list ;  this  is  not  true.  Solomon  succeeded  David  ;  yet 
David  had  at  least  six  sons,  who  were  grown  to  manhood  before 
Solomon  was  bom ;  and  Rehoboam  had,  at  least,  three  sons  before 
he  had  Abia  (Abijah)  who  succeeded  him.  It  is  needless  to  cite 
more  instances  to  this  purpose ;  but  from  these,  and  other  circum¬ 
stances  which  might  be  insisted  upon,  I  can  see  no  ground  for  be¬ 
lieving,  that  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  Christ,  mentioned  by  St. 
Matthew,  is  not  a  solemn  truth. 

You  insist  much  upon  some  things  being  mentioned  by  one  evan¬ 
gelist,  which  are  not  mentioned  by  all,  or  by  any  of  the  others ;  and 
you  take  this  to  be  a  reason  why  we  should  consider  the  Gospels, 
not  as  the  works  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  but  as  the 
productions  of  some  unconnected  individuals,  each  of  whom  made 
his  own  legend.  I  do  not  admit  the  truth  of  this  supposition ;  but  I 
may  be  allowed  to  use  it  as  an  argument  against  yourself;  it  re¬ 
moves  every  possible  suspicion  of  fraud  and  imposture,  and  con¬ 
firms  the  Gospel  history  in  the  strongest  manner.  Four  unconnected 
individuals  have  each  written  memoirs  of  the  life  of  Jesus ;  from 
whatever  source  they  derived  their  materials,  it  is  evident  that 
they  agree  in  a  great  many  particulars  of  the  last  importance ;  such 
as  the  purity  of  his  manners;  the  sanctity  of  his  doctrines;  the 
multitude  and  publicity  of  his  miracles ;  the  persecuting  spirit  of  his 
enemies;  the  manner  of  his  death ;  and  the  certainty  of  his  resur¬ 
rection  ;  and  whilst  they  agree  in  these  great  points,  their  disagree¬ 
ment  in  points  of  little  consequence  is  rather  a  confirmation  of  the 
truth,  than  an  indication  of  the  falsehood,  of  their  several  accounts. 
Had  they  agreed  in  nothing,  their  testimony  ought  to  have  been 
rejected  as  a  legendary  tale ;  had  they  agreed  in  every  thing,  it 
might  have  been  suspected,  that,  instead  of  unconnected  indivi¬ 
duals,  they  were  a  set  of  impostors.  The  manner  in  which  the 
evangelists  have  recorded  the  particulars  of  the  life  of  Jesus  is 
wholly  conformable  to  what  we  experience  in  other  biographers, 
and  claims  our  highest  assent  to  its  truth ;  notwithstanding  the 
force  of  your  incontrovertible  proposition. 

As  an  instance  of  contradiction  between  the  evangelists,  you  tell 
us,  that  Matthew  says,  the  angel  announcing  the  immaculate  con¬ 
ception  appeared  unto  Joseph ;  but  Luke  says,  he  appeared  unto 
Mary.  The  angel.  Sir,  appeared  to  them  both ;  to  Mary,  when  he 
informed  her  that  she  should,  by  the  power  of  God,  conceive  a  son ; 
to  Joseph,  some  months  afterwards,  when  Mary’s  pregnancy  was 
visible ;  in  the  interim  she  had  paid  a  visit  of  three  months  to  her 
cousin  Elizabeth.  It  might  have  been  expected,  that,  from  the  ac¬ 
curacy  with  which  you  have  read  your  Bible,  you  could  not  have 
confounded  these  obviously  distinct  appearances ;  but  men,  even  of 
candor,  are  liable  to  mistakes.  Who,  you  ask,  would  now  believe 
a  girl,  who  should  say  she  was  gotten  with  child  by  a  ghost?  Who» 


157 


for  the  Bible. 

hut  yourself,  would  ever  have  asked  a  question  so  ahominahly  in¬ 
decent  and  profane  1  I  cannot  argue  with  you  on  this  subject.  You 
wdll  never  persuade  the  world,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  has  any 
resemblance  to  the  stage  ghosts  in  Hamlet  or  Macbeth,  from  which 
you  seem  to  have  derived  your  idea  of  it. 

The  story  of  the  massacre  of  the  young  children  by  the  order 
of  Herod  is  mentioned  only  by  Matthew  ;  and,  therefore,  you  think 
it  is  a  lie.  We  must  give  up  all  history,  if  we  refuse  to  admit  facts 
recorded  by  only  one  historian.  Matthew  addressed  his  Gospel  to 
the  Jews,  and  put  them  in  mind  of  a  circumstance,  of  which  they 
must  have  had  a  rnelancholy  remembrance  ;  but  Gentile  converts 
were  less  interested  in  that  event.  The  evangelists  were  not 
writing  the  life  of  Herod,  but  of  Jesus ;  it  is  no  w'onder  that  they 
omitted,  above  half  a  century  after  the  death  of  Herod,  an  instance 
of  his  cruelty,  which  was  not  essentially  connected  with  their  sub¬ 
ject.  The  massacre,  however,  was  probably  known  even  at  Rome  ; 
and  it  was  certainly  correspondent  to  the  character  of  Herod.  John, 
you  say,  at  the  time  of  the  massacre,  “  was  under  two  years  of  age, 
and  yet  he  escaped ;  so  that  the  story  circumstantially  belies  itself” 
John  wms  six  months  older  than  Jesus  ,*  and  you  cannot  prove  that 
he  was  not  beyond  the  age  to  which  the  order  of  Herod  extended  ; 
it  probably  reached  no  farther  than  to  those  who  had  completed 
their  first  year,  without  including  those  who  had  entered  upon  their 
second;  but,  without  insisting  upon  this,  still  I  contend  that  you 
cannot  prove  John  to  have  been  under  two  years  of  age  at  the 
time  of  the  massacre ;  and  I  could  give  many  probable  reasons  to 
the  contrary.  Nor  is  it  certain  that  John  was,  at  that  time,  in  that 
part  of  the  country  to  which  the  edict  of  Herod  extended.  But 
there  would  be  no  end  of  answering,  at  length,  all  your  little  ob¬ 
jections. 

No  two  of  the  evangelists,  you  observe,  agree  in  reciting,  exactly 
in  the  same  words,  the  written  inscription  which  was  put  oyer  Christ 
when  he  was  crucified.  I  admit  that  there  is  an  unessential  verbal 
difference ;  and  are  you  certain  that  there  was  not  a  verbal  differ¬ 
ence  in  the  inscriptions  themselves  ?  One  wms  written  in  Hebrew^ 
another  in  Greek,  another  in  Latin ;  and,  though  they  had  all  the 
same  meaning,  yet  it  is  probable,  that  if  two  men  had  translated 
the  Hebrew  and  the  Latin  into  Greek,  there  would  have  been  a 
verbal  difference  betw'een  their  translations.  You  have  rendered 
yourself  famous  by  writing  a  book  called.  The  Rights  of  Man :  had 
you  been  guillotined  by  Robespierre,  with  this  title,  written  in 
French,  English,  and  German,  and  affixed  to  the  guillotine,  “  Thomas 
Paine,  of  America,  author  of  The  Rights  of  Man and  had  four 
persons,  some  of  whom  had  seen  the  execution,  and  the  rest  had 
heard  of  it  from  eye-witnesses,  written  short  accounts  of  your  life 
twenty  years  or  more  after  your  death,  and  one  had  said  the  inscrip¬ 
tion  was,  “  This  is  Thomas  Paine,  the  author  of  The  Rights  of 
Man;”  another,  “The  author  of  The  Rights  of  Man ;”  a  third, 
“This  is  the  author  of  The  Rights  of  Man;”  and  a  fourth,  “Thomas 
Paine,  of  America,  the  author  of  The  Rights  of  Man  ;”  would  any 
0 


158 


WatsorCs  Apology 

man  of  common  sense  have  doubted,  on  account  of  this  disagree¬ 
ment,  the  veracity  of  the  authors  in  writing  your  life  ?  “  The  only 
one,”  you  tell  us,  “  of  the  men  called  apostles,  who  appears  to  have 
been  near  the  spot  where  Jesus  was  crucified,  was  Peter.”  This 
your  assertion  is  not  true ;  we  do  not  know'  that  Peter  was  present 
at  the  crucifixion ;  but  we  do  know  that  John,  the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved,  was  present ;  for  Jesus  spoke  to  him  from  the  cross. 
You  go  on,  “  But  why  should  we  believe  Peter,  convicted  by  their 
own  account  of  perjury,  in  swearing  that  he  knew  not  Jesus?’'  I 
will  tell  you  why ;  because  Peter  sincerely  repented  of  the  wick¬ 
edness  into  which  he  had  been  betrayed,  through  fear  for  his  life, 
and  suffered  martyrdom  in  attestation  of  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
religion. 

But  the  evangelists  disagree,  you  say,  not  only  as  to  the  super¬ 
scription  on  the  cross,  but  as  to  the  time  of  the  crucifixion,  “  Mark 
saying  it  was  at  the  third  hour  (nine  in  the  morning),  and  John  at 
the  sixth  hour  (twelve,  as  you  suppose,  at  noon.”)  Various  solutions 
have  been  given  of  this  difficulty,  none  of  which  satisfied  Doctor 
Middleton,  much  less  can  it  be  expected  that  any  of  them  should 
satisfy  you ;  but  there  is  a  solution  not  noticed  by  him,  in  which 
many  judicious  men  have  acquiesced,  that  John,  writing  his  Gos¬ 
pel  in  Asia,  used  the  Roman  method  of  computing  time ;  which 
was  the  same  as  our  own ;  so  that  by  the  sixth  hour,  when  Jesus 
was  condemned,  we  are  to  understand  six  o’clock  in  the  morning  ; 
the  intermediate  time  from  six  to  nine,  when  he  was  crucified,  be¬ 
ing  employed  in  preparing  for  the  crucifixion.  But  if  this  difficulty 
should  be  still  esteerned  insuperable,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  will 
always  remain  so  ;  and  if  it  should,  the  main  point,  the  crucifixion 
of  Jesus,  will  not  be  affected  thereby. 

I  cannot,  in  this  place,  omit  remarking  some  circumstances  at¬ 
tending  the  crucifixion,  which  are  so  natural,  that  we  might  have 
wondered  if  they  had  not  occurred.  Of  all  the  disciples  of  Jesus, 
John  was  beloved  by  him  with  a  peculiar  degree  of  affection;  and, 
as  kindness  produces  kindness,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
regard  was  reciprocal.  Now,  whom  should  we  expect  to  be  the 
attendants  of 'Jesus  in  his  last  suffering?  Whom  but  John,  the 
friend  of  his  heart  ?  Whom  but  his  mother,  whose  soul  was  now 
pierced  through  by  the  sword  of  sorrow,  which  Simeon  had  fore¬ 
told  ?  Whom  but  those,  who  had  been  attached  to  him  through  life  ; 
who,  having  been  healed  by  him  of  their  infirmities,  were  impelled 
by  gratitude  to  minister  to  him  of  their  substance,  to  be  attentive  to 
all  his  wants  ?  These  were  the  persons  whom  we  should  have  ex¬ 
pected  to  attend  his  execution ;  and  these  were  there.  To  whom 
would  an  expiring  son,  of  the  best  affections,  recommend  a  pooi;, 
and,  probably,  a  widowed  mother,  but  to  his  w'armest  friend  ?  And 
this  did  Jesus.  Unmindful  of  the  extremity  of  his  own  torttzre,  and 
anxious  to  alleviate  the  burthen  of  her  sorrows,  and  to  protect  her 
old  age  from  future  want  and  misery,  he  said  to  his  beloved  disciple, 

“  Behold  thy  mother !  and  from  that  hour  that  disciple  took  her  to 
his  own  home.”  '  I  own  to  you,  that  such  instances  as  these,  of  the 


159 


for  the  Bible. 

confonnitv  of  events  to  our  probable  expectation,  are  to  me  genuine 
marks  of  the  simplicity  and  truth  of  the  Gospels;  and  far  outweigh 
a  thousand  little  objections,  arising  from  our  ignorance  of  manners, 
times,  and  circumstances,  or  from  our  incapacity  to  comprehend  the 
means  used  by  the  Supreme  Being  in  the  moral  government  of  his 

St.  Matthew  mentions  several  miracles  which  attended  oui  Sa¬ 
viour’s  crucifixion;  the  darkness  which  overspread  the  land ;  the 
rending  of  the  veil  of  the  temple;  an  earthquake  which  rent  the 
rocks ;  and  the  resurrection  of  many  saints,  and  their  gomg  into  the 
holy  city.  “  Such,”  you  say,  “  is  the  account  which  this  dashing 
writer  of  the  book  of  Matthew  gives,  but  in  which  he  is  not  sup¬ 
ported  by  the  writers  of  the  other  books.”  This  is  not  accurately 
^pressed;  Matthew  is  supported  by  Mark  and  Luke,  with  respect 
to  two  of  the  miracles ;  the  darkness,  and  the  rending  of  the  veil , 
and  their  omission  of  the  others  does  not  prove,  that  they  were 
either  ignorant  of  them,  or  disbelieved  them.  I  think  it  idle  to  pre¬ 
tend  to  say  positively  what  influenced  them  to  mention  only  two 
miracles;  they  probably  thought  them  sufficient  to  convince  any 
person,  as  they  convinced  the  centurion,  that  Jesus  “  was  a  right- 
eous  man”— “the  Son  of  God.”  And  these  two  miracles  were 
better  calculated  to  produce  general  conviction,  amongst  the  persons 
for  whose  benefit  Mark  and  Luke  wrote  their  Gospels,  than  either 
the  earthquake  or  the  resurrection  of  the  saints.  The  earthquake 
was,  probably,  confined  to  a  particular  spot,  and  might,  by  an  ob¬ 
jector,  have  been  called  a  natural  phenomenon ;  and  tho^  to  ivhom 
the  saints  appeared  might,  at  the  time  of  writing  the  G^ospels  of 
Mark  and  Luke,  have  been  dead;  but  the  darkness  must  have  been 
generally  knovra  and  remembered;  and  the  veil  of  the  temple 
might  still  be  preserved  at  the  time  these  authors  wrote,  to 
John  not  mentioning  any  of  these  miracles,  it  is  well  known,  that 
his  Gospel  was  written  as  a  kind  of  supplement  to  the  otiier  Gos¬ 
pels;  he  has,  therefore,  omitted  many  things  which  the  other  thiee 
evangelists  had  related,  and  he  has  added  several  things  which 
they  had  not  mentioned ;  in  particular,  he  has  added  a  circumstance 
of  great  importance;  he  tells  us,  that  he  saw  one  of  the  soldie. 
pierce  the  side  of  Jesus  with  a  spear,  and  that  blood  and  water 
Lwed  through  the  wound ;  and  lest  any  one  should  doubt  of  the 
fact,  from  its  not  being  mentioned  by  the  other  evangelists,  he  as¬ 
serts  it  with  peculiar  earnestness “  And  he  that  saw  it  bare 
record,  and  his  record  is  true  :  and  he  knoweth  that  he  saith  tme, 
that  ye  might  believe.”  John  saw  blood  and  water  flowing  from 
the  wound;  the  blood  is  easily  accounted  for;  but  whence  came 
the  water  ?  The  anatomists  tell  us,  that  it  came  from  the  pencardi- 
iim;  so  consistent  is  evangehcal  testimony  with  the  most  curious 
researches  into  natural  science !  You  amuse  yourself  with  the  ac¬ 
count  of  what  the  Scripture  calls  many  saints,  and  you  call  an  ar?»y 
of  saints,  and  are  angry  with  Matthew  for  not  having  told  you  a 
great  many  things  about  them.  It  is  very  possible,  that  Matthew 
might  have  known  the  fact  of  their  resurrection,  without  knowing 


160 


Walson^s  Apology 

every  thing  about  them ;  but  if  he  had  gratified  your  curiosity  in 
every  particular,  I  am  of  opinion  that  you  would  not  have  believed 
a  word  of  what  he  had  told  you.  I  have  no  curiosity  on  the  sub¬ 
ject;  it  is  enough  for  me  to  Imow,  that  “  Christ  w'as  the  first  fruits 
of  them  that  slept,”  and  “  that  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear 
his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth,”  as  those  holy  men  did,  who  heard 
the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God  at  his  resurrection,  and  passed  from 
death  to  life.  If  I  first  indulge  myself  in  being  wise  above  what  is 
written,  I  might  be  able  to  answer  many  of  your  inquiries  relative  to 
these  saints ;  but  I  dare  not  touch  the  ark  of  the  Lord,  I  dare  not 
support  the  authority  of  Scripture  by  the  boldness  of  conjecture. 
Whatever  difficulty  there  may  be  in  accounting  for  the  silence  of 
the  other  evangelists,  and  of  St.  Paul  also,  on  this  subject,  yet  there  is 
a  greater  difficulty  in  supposing  that  Matthew  did  not  give  a  true 
narration  of  what  had  happened  at  the  crucifixion.  If  there  had 
been  no  supernatural  darkness,  no  earthquake,  no  rending  of  the 
veil  of  the  temple,  no  graves  opened,  no  resurrection  of  holy  men, 
no  appearance  of  them  unto  many;  if  none  of  these  things  had 
been  true,  or  rather  if  any  one  of  them  had  been  false,  what  motive 
could  Matthew,  writing  to  the  Jews,  have  had  for  trumping  up  such 
wonderful  stories  ?  He  wrote  as  every  man  does,  with  an  intention 
to  be  believed ;  and  yet  every  Jew  he  met  would  have  stared  him 
in  the  face,  and  told  him  that  he  was  a  liar  and  an  impostor.  What 
author,  who,  twenty  years  hence,  should  address  to  the  French 
nation  a  history  of  Louis  XVI.,  would  venture  to  affirm,  that  when 
he  was  beheaded  there  was  darkness  for  three  hours  over  all 
France?  that  there  was  an  earthquake?  that  rocks  were  split? 
graves  opened?  and  dead  men  brought  to  life,  who  appeared  to 
many  persons  in  Paris  ?  It  is  quite  impossible  to  suppose,  that  any 
one  would  dare  to  publish  such  obvious  lies ;  and  I  think  it  equally 
impossible  to  suppose,  that  Matthew  would  have  dared  to  publish 
his  account  of  what  happened  at  the  death  of  Jesus,  had  not  that 
accoimt  been  generally  known  to  be  true. 


LETTER  VIII. 

The  “  tale  of  the  resurrection,”  you  say,  “  follows  that  of  the  cru¬ 
cifixion.”  You  have  accustomed  me  so  much  to  this  kind  of  lan¬ 
guage,  that  when  I  find  you  speaking  of  a  tale,  I  have  no  doubt  of 
meeting  with  a  truth.  From  the  apparent  disagreement  in  the  ac¬ 
counts,  which  the  evangelists  have  given  of  some  circumstances  re¬ 
specting  the  resurrection,  you  remark,  “If  the  writers  of  these 
books  had  gone  into  any  court  of  justice  to  prove  an  dLihi  (for  it  is 
the  nature  of  an  alibi  that  is  here  attempted  to  be  proved,  namely, 
the  absence  of  a  dead  body  by  supernatural  means),  and  had  given 
their  evidence  in  the  same  contradictory  manner,  as  it  is  here  given ; 


161 


for  the  Bible. 

they  would  have  been  in  danger  of  having  their  ears  crept  for  per¬ 
jury,  and  would  have  justly  deserved  it “  hard  words,  or  hang¬ 
ing,”  it  seems,  if  you  had  been  their  judge.  Now  I  maintain,  that 
it  is  the  brevity  wdth  which  the  account  of  the  resurrection  is  given 
by  all  the  evangelists,  which  has  occasioned  the  seeming  confusion ; 
and  that  this  confusion  would  have  been  cleared  up  at  once,  if  the 
witnesses  of  the  resurrection  had  been  examined  before  any  judica¬ 
ture.  As  we  cannot  have  this  viva  voce  examination  of  all  the  wit¬ 
nesses,  let  us  call  up  and  question  the  evangelists  as  witnesses  to  a 
supernatural  alibi.  Did  you  find  the  sepulchre  of  Jesus  empty? 
One  of  us  actually  saw  it  empty,  and  the  rest  heard,  from  eye-wit¬ 
nesses,  that  it  was  empty.  Did  you,  or  any  of  the  followers  of  Jesus, 
take  away  the  dead  body  from  the  sepulchre  ?  All  answer.  No.  Did 
the  soldiers,  or  the  Jews,  take  away  the  body  ?  No.  How  are  you 
certain  of  that  ?  Because  we  saw  the  body  when  it  was  dead,  and 
we  saw  it  afterwards  when  it  was  alive.  How  do  you  know  that 
what  you  saw  was  the  body  of  Jesus?  We  had  been  long  and  in¬ 
timately  acquainted  with  Jesus,  and  knew  his  person  perfectly. 
Were  you  not  affrighted,  and  mistook  a  spirit  for  a  body?  No ;  the 
body  had  flesh  and  bones ;  we  are  sure  that  it  was  the  very  body 
which  hung  upon  the  cross,  for  we  saw  the  wound  in  the  side,  and 
the  print  of  the  nails  in  the  hands  and  feet.  And  all  this  you  are 
ready  to  swear  ?  We  are  ;  and  we  are  ready  to  die  also,  sooner  than 
we  will  deny  any  part  of  it.  This  is  the  testimony  which  all  the 
evangelists  would  give,  in  w'hatever  court  of  justice  they  were  ex¬ 
amined  ;  and  this,  I  apprehend,  would  sufficiently  establish  the  alibi 
of  the  dead  body  from  the  sepulchre  by  supernatural  means. 

But  as  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  a  point  which  you  attack  with 
all  your  force,  I  will  examine  minutely  the  principal  of  your  objec¬ 
tions  ;  I  do  not  think  them  deserving  of  this  notice,  but  they  shall 
have  it.  The  book  of  Matthew,  you  say,  states,  “  that  when  Christ 
was  put  in  the  sepulchre,  the  Jews  applied  to  Pilate  for  a  watch  or 
a  guard  to  be  placed  over  the  sepulchre,  to  prevent  the  body  being 
stolen  by  the  disciples.”  I  admit  this  account,  but  it  is  not  the  whole 
of  the  account ;  you  have  omitted  the  reason  for  the  request  which 
the  chief  priests  made  to  Pilate ;  “  Sir,  we  remember  that  that  de¬ 
ceiver  said,  while  he  was  yet  alive.  After  three  days  I  will  rise 
again.”  It  is  material  to  remark  this ;  for,  at  the  very  time  that  Jesus 
predicted  his  resurrection,  he  predicted  also  his  crucifixion,  and  all 
that  he  should  suffer  from  the  malice  of  those  very  men  who  now 
applied  to  Pilate  for  a  guard.  “  He  showed  to  his  disciples,  how 
that  he  most  go  unto  Jerusalem,  and  sufier  many  things  of  the 
elders,  and  chief  priests,  and  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and  be  raised 
again  the  third  day.”  (Matt.  xvi.  21.)  These  men  knew  full  well 
that  the  first  part  of  this  prediction  had  been  accurately  fulfilled 
through  their  malignity ;  and,  instead  of  repenting  of  what  they 
had  done,  they  were  so  infatuated  as  to  suppose,  that  by  a  guard  of 
soldiers  they  could  prevent  the  completion  of  the  second.  The 
other  books,  you  observe,  “  say  nothing  about  this  application,  nor 
about  the  sealing  of  the  stone,  nor  the  guard,  nor  the  watch,  and 
02 


162  Watson^s  Apology 

according  to  these  accounts  there  were  none.”  This,  Sir,  I  deny. 
The  other  books  do  not  say  that  there  were  none  of  these  things ; 
how  often  must  I  repeat,  that  omissions  are  not  contradictions,  nor 
silence  concerning  a  fact  a  denial  of  it  ? 

You  go  on :  “  The  book  of  Matthew  continues  its  account,  that  at 
the  end  of  the  sabbath,  as  it  began  to  dawm,  towards  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  came  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other  Maiy  to  see  the 
sepulchre.  Mark  says  it  was  sunrising,  and  John  says  it  was  dark. 
Luke  says  it  was  Mary  Magdalene,  and  Joanna,  and  Mary  the 
mother  of  James,  and  other  women  that  came  to  the  sepulchre. 
And  John  says  that  Mary  Magdalene  came  alone.  So  w’ell  do  they 
agree  about  their  first  evidence  !  they  all  appear,  however,  to  have 
known  most  about  Mary  Magdalene ;  she  was  a  woman  of  a  large 
acquaintance,  and  it  was  not  an  ill  conjecture  that  she  might  ^ 
upon  the  stroll.”  This  is  a  long  paragraph ;  I  will  answer  it  dis¬ 
tinctly.  First,  there  is  no  disagreement  of  evidence  with  respect  to 
the  time  when  the  women  went  to  the  sepulchre ;  all  the  evangel¬ 
ists  agree  as  to  the  day  on  which  they  went ;  and,  as  to  the  time  of 
the  day,  it  was  early  in  the  morning ;  what  court  of  justice  in  the 
world  would  set  aside  this  evidence,  as  insufficient  to  substantiate 
the  fact  of  the  women’s  having  gone  to  the  sepulchre,  because  the 
witnesses  differed  as  to  the  degree  of  twilight  which  lighted  them 
on  their  way  1  Secondly,  there  is  no  disagreement  of  evidence  with 
respect  to  the  persons  who  went  to  the  sepulchre.  John  states  that 
Mary  Magdalene  went  to  the  sepulchre ;  but  he  does  not  state,  as 
you  make  him  state,  that  Mary  Magdalene  went  alone ;  she  might, 
for  any  thing  you  have  provecl,  or  can  prove  to  the  contrary,  have 
been  accompanied  by  all  the  women  mentioned  by  Luke.  Is  it  an 
unusual  thing  to  distmguish  by  name  a  principal  person  going  on  a 
visit,  or  an  embassy,  without  mentioning  his  subordinate  attendants  ? 
Thirdly,  in  opposition  to  your  insinuation,  that  Mary  Magdalene 
was  a  common  woman,  I  wish  it  to  be  considered,  whether  there  is 
any  scriptural  authority  for  that  imputation ;  and  whether  there  be 
or  not,  I  must  contend,  that  a  repentant  and  reformed  woman  ought 
not  to  be  esteemed  an  improper  witness  of  a  fact.  The  conjecture, 
which  you  adopt  concerning  her,  is  nothing  less  than  an  illiberal, 
indecent,  imfounded  calumny,  not  excusable  in  the  mouth  of  a 
libertine,  and  intolerable  in  yours. 

The  book  of  Matthew,  you  observe,  goes  on  to  say :  “  And  be¬ 
hold,  there  was  an  earthquake,  for  the  angel  of  the  Lord  descended 
from  heaven,  and  came  and  rolled  back  the  stone  from  the  door,  and 
sat  upon  it ;  but  the  other  books  say  nothing  about  any  earthquake.” 
What  then  ?  does  their  silence  prove  that  there  was  none  ?  “  nor 
about  the  angel  rolling  back  the  stone  and  sitting  upon  it;”  what 
then  ?  does  their  silence  prove  that  the  stone  was  not  rolled  back 
by  an  angel,  and  that  he  did  not  sit  upon  it?  “and,  according  to 
their  accounts,,  there  was  no  angel  sitting  there.”  This  conclusion  1 
must  deny ;  their  accounts  do  not  say  there  was  no  angel  sitting 
there  at  the  time  that  Matthew  says  he  sat  upon  the  stone.  They 
do  not  deny  the  fact,  they  simply  omit  the  mention  of  it ;  and  they 


163 


for  the  Bible. 

all  take  notice,  that  the  women,  when  they  arrived  at  the  sepulchre, 
found  the  stone  rolled  away.  Hence  it  is  evident,  that  the  stone 
was  rolled  away  before  the  women  arrived  at  the  sepulchre ;  and 
the  other  evangelists,  giving  an  account  of  what  happened  to  the 
women  when  they  reached  the  sepulchre,  have  merely  omitted 
giving  an  account  of  a  transaction  previous  to  their  arrival.  Where 
is  the  contradiction  ?  What  space  of  time  intervened  between  the 
rolling  away  the  stone,  and  the  arrival  of  the  women  at  the  sepul¬ 
chre,  is  nowhere  mentioned ;  but  it  certainly  was  long  enough  for 
the  angel  to  have  changed  his  position ;  from  sitting  on  the  outside 
he  might  have  entered  into  the  sepulchre ;  and  another  angel  might 
have  made  his  appearance,  or,  from  the  first,  there  might  have  been 
two,  one  on  the  outside  rolling  away  the  stone,  and  the  other  within. 
Luke,  you  tell  us,  “  says  there  were  two,  and  they  were  both  stand¬ 
ing  ;  and  John  says  there  were  two,  and  both  sitting.”  It  is  impos¬ 
sible,  I  grant,  even  for  an  angel  to  be  sitting  and  standing  at  the 
same  instant  of  time ;  but  Luke  and  John  do  not  speak  of  the  same 
instant,  nor  of  the  same  appearance.  Luke  speaks  of  the  appear¬ 
ance  to  all  the  women ;  and  John  of  the  appearance  to  Mary  Mag¬ 
dalene  alone,  who  tarried  weeping  at  the  sepulchre  after  Peter  and 
John  had  left  it.  But  I  forbear  makmg  any  more  minute  remarks  on 
still  more  minute  objections,  all  of  which  are  grounded  on  this 
mistake,  that  the  angels  were  seen  at  one  particular  time,  in  one 
particular  place,  and  by  the  same  individuals. 

As  to  your  inference  from  Matthew’s  using  the  expression  “  unto 
this  day,”  “that  the  book  must  have- been  manufactured  after  a 
lapse  of  some  generations  at  least,”  it  cannot  be  admitted  against  the 
positive  testimony  of  all  antiquity.  That  the  story  about  stealing 
away  the  body  was  a  bungling  story,  I  readily  admit ;  but  the  chief 
priests  are  answerable  for  it ;  it  is  not  worthy  either  your  notice,  or 
mine  ;  except  as  it  is  a  strong  instance  to  you,  to  me,  and  to  every 
body,  how  far  prejudice  may  mislead  the  understanding. 

You  come  to  that  part  of  the  evidence  in  those  books  that  re¬ 
spects,  you  say,  “  the  pretended  appearance  of  Christ  after  his  pre¬ 
tended  resurrection ;”  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Matthew  relates, 
that  the  angel  that  was  sitting  on  the  stone  at  the  mouth  of  the 
sepulchre  said  to  the  two  Marys  (chap,  xxviii.  7),  “Behold,  Christ  is 
gone  before  you  into  Galilee,  there  shall  you  see  him.”  The  Gospel, 
Sir,  was  preached  to  poor  and  illiterate  men ;  and  it  is  the  duty  of 
priests  to  preach  it  to  them  in  all  its  purity ;  to  guard  them  against 
the  errors  of  mistaken,  or  the  designs  of  wicked  men.  You  then, 
who  can  read  your  Bible,  turn  to  this  passage,  and  you  will  find  that 
the  angel  did  not  say,  “Behold,  Christ  is  gone  before  into  Galilee ;” 
but,  “  Behold,  he  goeth  before  you  into  Galilee.”  I  know  not  what 
Bible  you  made  use  of  in  this  quotation,  none  that  I  have  seen 
render  the  original  word  by — ^he  is  gone.  It  might  be  properly  ren¬ 
dered,  he  will  go ;  and  it  is  literally  rendered,  he  is  going.  This 
phrase  does  not  imply  an  immediate  setting  out  for  Galilee  ;  when 
a  man  has  fixed  upon  a  long  journey  to  London  or  Bath,  it  is  com¬ 
mon  enough  to  say,  he  is  going  to  London  or  Bath,  though  the  time 


164  Walsonh  Apology 

of  his  going  may  be  at  some  distance.  Even  your  dashing  Matthew 
could  not  be  guilty  of  such  a  blunder  as  to  make  the  angel  say  “  he 
is  gone for  he  tells  us  immediately  afterwards,  that,  as  the  w'omen 
were  departing  from  the  sepulchre  to  tell  his  disciples  what  the 
angels  had  said  to  them,  Jesus  himself  met  them.  Now,  how  Jesus 
could  be  “gone”  into  Galilee,  and  yet  meet  the  women  at  Jerusa¬ 
lem,  I  leave  you  to  explain,  for  the  blunder  is  not  chargeable  upon 
Matthew.  I  excuse  your  introducing  the  expression,  “  then  the 
eleven  disciples  went  away  into  Galilee,”  for  the  quotation  is  rightly 
made  ;  but  had  you  turned  to  the  Greek  Testament,  you  would  not 
have  found  in  this  place  any  word  answering  to  then  ;  the  passage 
is  better  translated,  “  and  the  eleven.”  Christ  had  said  to  his  dis¬ 
ciples  (Matt.  xxvi.  32),  “  After  I  am  risen  again,  1  will  go  before  you 
into  Galilee ;”  and  the  angel  put  the  women  in  mind  of  the  very 
expression  and  prediction,  “  he  is  risen,  as  he  said  ;  and  behold,  he 
goeth  before  you  into  Galilee.”  Matthew,  intent  upon  the  appear¬ 
ance  in  Galilee,  of  which  tliere  were,  probably,  at  the  time  he 
wrote,  many  living  witnesses  in  Judea,  omits  the  mention  of  many 
appearances  taken  notice  of  by  John,  and,  by  this  omission,  seems 
to  connect  the  day  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  with  that  of  the  de¬ 
parture  of  the  disciples  for  Galilee.  You  seem  to  think  this  a  great 
difficulty,  and  incapable  of  solution ;  for  you  say,  “  it  is  not  possible, 
unless  we  admit  these  disciples  the  right  of  wilful  lying,  that  the 
writers  of  these  books  could  be  any  of  the  eleven  persons  called 
disciples ;  for  if,  according  to  Matthew^  the  eleven  went  into  Galilee 
to  meet  Jesus  in  a  mountain,  by  his  own  appointment,  on  the  same 
day  that  he  is  said  to  have  risen,  Luke  and  John  must  have  been 
two  of  that  eleven ;  yet  the  writer  of  Luke  says  expressly,  and  John 
implies  as  much,  that  the  meeting  was  that  same  day  in  a  house  at 
Jerusalem ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  if,  according  to  Luke  and  John, 
the  eleven  were  assembled  in  a  house  at  Jerusalem,  Matthew^  must 
have  been  one  of  that  eleven ;  yet  Matthew  says,  the  meeting  was 
in  a  mountain  in  Galilee,  and  consequently  the  evidence  given  in 
those  books  destroys  each  other.”  When  I  was  a  young  man  in  the 
university,  1  was  pretty  much  accustomed  to  drawing  of  conse¬ 
quences;  but  my  Alma  Mater  did  not  suffer  me  to  draw  conse¬ 
quences  after  your  manner!  she  taught  me,  that  a  false  position 
must  end  in  an  absurd  conclusion ;  I  have  shown  your  position,  that 
the  eleven  went  into  Galilee  on  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  to  he 
false;  and  hence  your  consequence,  that  the  evidence  given  in  these 
two  books  destroys  each  other,  is  not  to  be  admitted.  You  ought, 
moreover,  to  have  considered,  that  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread, 
which  immediately  followed  the  day  on  which  the  pa.ssover  v\  as 
eaten,  lasted  seven  days;  and  that  strict  observers  of  the  law  did 
not  think  themselves  at  liberty  to  leave  Jerusalem  till  that  feast  was 
ended ;  and  this  is  a  collateral  proof,  that  the  disciples  did  not  go  to 
Galilee  on  the  day  of  the  resurrection. 

You  certainly  have  read  the  New  Testament,  but  not,  I  think, 
with  great  attention,  or  you  would  have  known  who  the  apostles 
were.  In  this  place  you  reckon  Luke  as  one  of  the  eleven,  and 


165 


for  the  Bible. 

in  other  places  you  speak  of  him  as  an  eye-witness  of  the  things  ho 
relates  :  you  ought  to  have  known,  that  Luke  was  no  apostle ;  and 
he  tells  you  himself,  in  the  preface  to  his  Gospel,  that  he  wrote 
from  the  testimony  of  others.  If  this  mistake  proceeds  from  your 
ignorance,  you  are  not  a  fit  person  to  write  comments  on  the  Bible ; 
if  from  design  (which  I  am  unwilling  to  suspect),  you  are  still  less 
fit ;  in  either  case  it  may  suggest  to  your  readers  the  propriety  of 
suspecting  the  truth  and  accuracy  of  your  assertions,  however  dar¬ 
ing  and  intemperate.  “  Of  the  numerous  priests  or  parsons  of  the 
present  day,  bishops  and  all,  the  sum-total  of  whose  learning,”  ac¬ 
cording  to  you,  “  is  a  6  o6,  and  hie,  hcec,  hoc,  there  is  not  one  amongst 
them,”  you  say,  “  w'ho  can  write  poetry  like  Homer,  or  science  like 
Euclid.”  If  I  should  admit  this  (though  there  are  many  of  them,  I 
doubt  not,  who  understand  these  authors  better  than  you  do),  yet  I 
cannot  admit  that  there  is  one  amongst  them,  bishops  and  all,  so  ig¬ 
norant  as  to  rank  Luke  the  evangelist  among  the  apostles  of  Christ. 
I  will  not  press  this  point ;  any  man  may  fall  into  a  mistake,  and  the 
consciousness  of  this  fallibility  should  create  in  all  men  a  little  mod¬ 
esty,  a  little  diffidence,  a  little  caution,  before  they  presume  to  call 
the  most  illustrious  characters  of  antiquity,  liars,  foots,  and  knaves. 

You  want  to  know  why  Jesus  did  not  show'  himself  to  all  the 
people  after  the  resurrection.  This  is  one  of  Spinoza’s  objections  ; 
and  it  may  sound  well  enough  in  the  mouth  of  a  Jew,  wishing  to  ex¬ 
cuse  the  infidelity  of  his  countrymen ;  but  it  is  not  judiciousl}’- 
adopted  by  deists  of  other  nations.  God  gives  us  the  means  of 
health,  but  he  does  not  force  us  to  the  use  of  them ;  he  gives  us  the 
powers  of  the  mind,  but  he  does  not  compel  us  to  the  cultivation  of 
them ;  he  gave  the  Jews  opportunities  of  seeing  the  miracles  of  Je¬ 
sus,  but  he  did  not  oblige  them  to  believe  them.  They,  who  pre¬ 
severed  in  their  incredulity  after  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  would 
have  persevered  also  after  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  Lazarus  had 
been  buried  four  days,  Jesus  but  three ;  the  body  of  Lazarus  had 
begun  to  undergo  corruption,  the  body  of  Jesus  saw  no  corruption  ; 
why  should  you  expect,  that  they  w’ould  have  believed  in  Jesus  on 
his  own  resurrection,  when  they  had  not  believed  in  him  on  the 
resurrection  of  Lazarus  ?  When  the  Pharisees  w'ere  told  of  the 
resurrection  of  Lazarus,  they,  together  with  the  chief  priests,  gath¬ 
ered  a  council,  and  said,  “  What  do  we  ?  for  this  man  doeth  many 
miracles.  If  we  let  him  thus  alone,  all  men  will  believe  on  him  : 
then  from  that  day  forth  they  took  counsel  together  to  put  him  to 
death.”  The  great  men  at  Jerusalem,  you  see,  admitted  that  Jesus 
had  raised  Lazarus  from  the  dead  ;  yet  the  belief  of  that  miracle  did 
not  generate  conviction  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ ;  it  only  exaspe¬ 
rated  their  malice,  and  accelerated  their  purpose  of  destroying  him. 
Ha,d  Jesus  shown  himself  after  his  resurrection,  the  chief  priests 
would  probably  have  gathered  together  another  council,  have 
opened  it.  What  do  w’e  ?  and  ended  it  with  a  determination  to  put 
him  to  death.  As  to  us,  the  evidence  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus, 
which  we  have  in  the  New  Testament,  is  far  more  convincing,  than 
if  it  had  been  related  that  he  showed  himself  to  every  man  in  JerU’ 

11 


166  Watsoii^s  Apology 

Salem ;  for  then  we  sliould  have  had  a  suspicion,  that  the  whole 
story  had  been  fabricated  by  the  Jews. 

You  think  Paul  an  improper  witness  of  the  resurrection  ;  I  think 
him  one  of  the  fittest  that  could  have  been  chosen ;  and  for  this 
reason,  his  testimony  is  the  testimony  of  a  former  enemy.  He  had, 
in  his  own  miraculous  conversion,  sufficient  ground  for  changing  his 
opinion  as  to  a  matter  of  fact ;  for  believing  that  to  have  been  a 
fact,  which  he  had  formerly,  tlirough  extreme  prejudice,  considered 
as  a  fable.  For  the  truth  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  he  appeals  to 
above  two  hundred  and  fifty  living  witnesses ;  and  before  whom 
does  he  make  this  appeal  ?  Before  his  enemies,  who  were  able  and 
willing  to  blast  his  character,  if  he  had  advanced  an  untruth.  You 
know,  undoubtedly,  that  Paul  had  resided  at  Corinth  near  two  years ; 
that,  during  a  part  of  that  time,  he  had  testified  to  the  Jews,  that 
Jesus  was  the  Christ;  that,  finding  the  bulk  of  that  nation  obstinate 
in  their  unbelief,  he  had  turned  to  the  Gentiles,  and  had  converted 
many  to  the  faith  in  Christ ;  that  he  left  Corinth,  and  went  to  preach 
the  Gospel  in  other  parts ;  that,  about  three  years  after  he  had  quit¬ 
ted  Corinth,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  the  converts  which  he  had  made 
in  that  place,  and  who,  after  his  departure,  had  been  split  into  dif¬ 
ferent  factions,  and  had  adopted  different  teachers  in  opposition  to 
Paul,  From  this  account  we  may  be  certain,  that  Paul’s  letter,  and 
every  circumstance  in  it,  would  be  minutely  examined.  The  city 
of  Corinth  was  full  of  Jews ;  these  men  were,  in  general,  Paul’s 
bitter  enemies ;  yet,  in  the  face  of  them  all,  he  asserts,  “  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  buried ;  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day ;  that  he  was 
afterwards  seen  of  above  five  hundred  brethren  at  once,  of  whom 
the  greater  part  were  then  alive.  An  appeal  to  above  two  hundred 
and  fifty  living  witnesses  is  a  pretty  strong  proof  of  a  fact ;  but  it 
becomes  irresistible,  when  that  appeal  is  submitted  to  the  judgment 
of  enemies.  St.  Paul,  you  must  allow,  was  a  man  of  ability ;  but 
he  would  have  been  an  idiot  had  he  put  it  in  the  power  of  his  ene¬ 
mies  to  prove,  from  his  own  letter,  that  he  was  a  lying  rascal.  They 
neither  proved,  nor  attempted  to  prove,  any  such  thing ;  and,  there¬ 
fore,  we  may  safely  conclude,  that  this  testimony  of  Paul  to  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  was  true ;  and  it  is  a  testimony,  in  my  opinion, 
of  the  greatest  weight. 

You  come,  you  say,  to  the  last  scene,  the  ascension  ;  upon  which, 
In  your  opinion,  “  the  reality  of  the  future  mission  of  the  disciples 
was  to  rest  for  proof.”  I  do  not  agree  with  you  in  this.  The  reality 
of  the  future  mission  of  the  apostles  might  have  been  proved,  though 
Jesus  Christ  had  not  visibly  ascended  into  heaven.  Miracles  are 
the  proper  proofs  of  a  divine  mission;  and  when  Jesus  gave  the 
apostles  a  commission  to  preach  the  Gospel,  he  commanded  them  to 
stay  at  Jerusalem,  till  they  “  were  endued  with  power  from  on 
high.”  Matthew  has  omitted  the  mention  of  the  ascension ;  and 
John,  you  say,  has  not  said  a  syllable  about  it.  I  think  otherwise. 
John  has  not  given  an  express  account  of  the  ascension,  but  has  cer¬ 
tainly  said  something  about  it;  for  he  informs  us,  that  Jesus  said  to 
Mary,  “  Touch  me  not ;  for  I  am  not  yet  ascended  to  my  Father :  but 


for  the  Bible.  107 

go  to  my  brethren,  and  say  unto  them,  “  I  ascend  unto  my  Father 
and  your  Father,  and  to  my  God  and  your  God.”  This  is  surely 
saying  something  about  the  ascension  ;  and  if  the  fact  of  the  ascen- 
sion  be  not  related  by  John  or  Matthew,  it  may  reasonably  be  sup- 
jwsed,  that  the  omission  was  made,  on  account  of  the  notoriety  of 
the  met.  T.  hat  the  fact  was  generally  known  may  be  justly  col- 
lected  from  the  reference  which  Peter  makes  to  it  in  the  hearing  of 
all  the  Jews,  a  very  few  days  after  it  had  happened,  “This  Jesus 
hatn  God  raised  up,  whereof  we  all  are  witnesses.  Therefore  be- 
mg  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted — Paul  bears  testimony  also 
to  the  ascension  when  he  says,  that  “Jesus  was  received  up  into 
gloty.  As  to  the  difference  you  contend  for,  between  the  account 
ol  the  ascension,  as  given  by  Mark  and  Luke,  it  does  not  exist;  ex¬ 
cept  in  this,  that  Mark  omits  the  particulars  of  Jesus  going  with  his 
apostles  to  Bethany,  and  blessing  them  there,  which  are  mentioned 
by  Luke.  But  omissions,  I  must  often  put  you  in  mind,  are  not  con¬ 
tradictions. 

You  have  now,  you  say,  “  gone  through  the  examination  of  the 
tour  books  ascribed  to  Matthew,  Mark,  Imke,  and  John ;  and  when 
It  IS  considered,  that  the  whole  space  of  time,  from  the  crucifixion 
to  what  IS  called  the  ascension,  is  but  a  few  days,  apparently  not 
more  than  three  or  four,  and  that  all  the  circumstances  are  reported 
to  have  happened  near  the  same  spot,  Jerusalem,  it  is,  I  believe, 
impossible  to  find,  in  any  sto^  upon  record,  so  many,  and  such 
glaring  absurdities,  contradictions,  and  falsehoods,  as  are  in  those 
TOoks.  What  am  I  to  say  to  this  ?  Am  I  to  say,  that,  in  writing 
ffis  paragraph,  you  have  forfeited  your  character  as  an  honest  man  ? 
Ur,  admitting  j^our  honesty,  am  I  to  say  that  you  are  grossly  igno¬ 
rant  of  the  subject  Let  the  reader  judge.  John  says,  that  Jesus 
disciples  at  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  his  resurrection, 
and  that  Thomas  was  not  then  with  them.  Tlie  same  John  says, 
that  after  “  eight  days”  he  appeared  to  them  again,  when  Thomas 
was  with  them.  Now,  Sir,  how  “  apparently  three  or  four  days,” 
can  be  consistent- with  really  “eight  days,”  I  leave  you  to  make 
out.  But  this  is  not  the  whole  of  John’s  testimony,  either  with  re¬ 
spect  to  place  or  time ;  for  he  says :  “  After  these  things  (after  the 
two  app^rances  to  the  disciples  at  Jerusalem,  on  the  first  and  o 
the  eighth  day  after  the  resurrection),  Jesus  showed  himself  again 
to  his  disciples  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias.”  The  sea  of  Tiberias,  I  pre¬ 
sume  you  know,  was  in  Galilee ;  and  Galilee,  you  may  know,  was 
sixty  or  seventy  miles  from  Jerusalem;  it  must  have  taken  the  dis¬ 
ciples  some  time,  after  the  eighth  day,  to  travel  from  Jerusalem 
into  Galilee.  What,  in  your  own  insulting  language  to  the  priests, 
what  have  you  to  answer,  as  to  the  “  same  spot  Jerusalem,”  as  to 
your  apparently  “  three  or  four  days  ?”  But  this  is  not  all.  Luke, 
m  the  beginning  of  the  Acts,  refers  to  his  Gospel,  and  says,  “  Christ 
showed  himself  alive  after  his  passion,  by  many  infallible  proofs, 
eing  seen  of  the  apostles  forty  days,  and  speaking  of  the  things 
^naming  to  the  kingdom  of  God.”  Instead  of  four,  you  perceive 

ere  ere  forty  days  between  the  crucifixion  and  the  ascension.  I 


168  Watso7i’s  Apology 

need  not,  I  trust,  after  this,  trouble  myself  about  the  falsehoods  and 
contradictions  which  you  impute  to  the  evangelists ;  your  readers 
cannot  but  be  upon  their  guard,  as  to  the  credit  due  to  your  asser¬ 
tions,  however  bold  and  improper.  You  will  suffer  me  to  remark, 
that  the  evangelists  were  plain  men ;  who,  convinced  of  the  truth 
of  their  narration,  and  conscious  of  their  own  integrity,  have  related 
what  they  knew  with  admirable  simplicity.  They  seem  to  have 
said  to  the  Jews  of  their  time,  and  to  say  to  the  Jews  and  unbe¬ 
lievers  of  all  times.  We  have  told  you  the  truth ;  and  if  you  will  not 
believe  us,  we  have  nothing  more  to  say.  Had  they  been  impostors, 
they  would  have  written  with  more  caution  and  art,  have  obviated 
every  cavil,  and  avoided  every  appearance  of  contradiction.  This 
they  have  not  done ;  and  this  1  consider  as  a  proof  of  their  honesty 
and  veracity. 

John  the  Baptist  had  given  his  testimony  to  the  truth  of  our  Sa¬ 
viour’s  mission  in  the  most  unequivocal  terms  ;  he  afterwards  sent 
two  of  his  disciples  to  Jesus,  to  ask  him  whether  he  was  really  the 
expected  Messiah  or  not.  Matthew  relates  both  these  circumstanees : 
had  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Matthew  been  an  impostor,  would  he 
have  invalidated  John’s  testimony,  by  bringing  forward  his  real  or 
apparent  doubt  ?  Impossible  !  Matthew,  having  proved  the  resur¬ 
rection  of  Jesus,  tells  us,  that  the  eleven  disciples  went  away  into 
Galilee,  into  a  mountain  where  Jesus  had  appointed  them,  and 
“  when  they  saw  him,  they  worshipped  him ;  but  some  doubted.” 
Would  an  impostor,  in  the  very  last  place  where  he  mentions  the 
resurrection,  and  in  the  conclusion  of  his  book,  have  suggested  such 
a  cavil  to  unbehevers,  as  to  say — some  doubted ?  Impossible!  The 
evangelist  has  left  us  to  collect  the  reason  why  some  doubted.  The 
disciples  saw  Jesus,  at  a  distance,  on  the  mountain ;  and  some  of 
them  fell  down  and  worshipped  him ;  whilst  others  doubted  whether 
the  person  they  saw  was  really  Jesus ;  their  doubt,  however,  could 
not  have  lasted  long,  for  in  the  very  next  verse  we  are  told,  that 
Jesus  came  and  spake  unto  them.” 

Great  and  laudable  pains  have  been  taken  by  many  learned  men, 
to  harmonize  the  several  accounts  given  us  by  the  evangelists  of 
the  resurrection.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  a  matter  of  any  great 
consequence  to  Christianity,  whether  the  accounts  can,  in  every 
minute  particular,  be  harmonized  or  not ;  since  there  is  no  such 
discordance  in  them  as  to  render  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  doubt¬ 
ful  to  any  impartial  mind.  If  any  man,  in  a  court  of  justice,  should 
give  positive  evidence  of  a  fact ;  and  three  others  should  afterwards 
be  examined,  hnd  all  of  them  should  confirm  the  evidence  of  the 
first  as  to  the  fact,  but  should  apparently  differ  from  him  and  from 
each  other,  by  being  more  or  less  particular  in  their  accounts  of  the 
circumstances  attending  the  fact ;  ought  we  to  doubt  of  the  fact, 
because  W’e  could  not  harmonize  the  evidence  respecting  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  relating  to  it  ?  The  omission  of  any  one  circumstance 
(such  as  that  of  Mary  Magdalene  having  gone  twdce  to  the  sepul¬ 
chre  ;  or  that  of  the  angel  having,  after  he  had  rolled  away  the 
stone  from  the  sepulchre,  entered  into  the  sepulchre)  may  render 


for  the  Bible.  169 

a  harmony  impossible,  without  having  recourse  to  supposition  to 
supply  the  defect.  You  deists  laugh  at  all  such  attempts,  and  call 
them  priestcraft.  I  think  it  better,  then,  in  arguing  with  you,  to  ad¬ 
mit  that  there  may  be  (not  granting,  however,  that  there  is)  an 
irreconcilable  difference  betw^een  the  evangelists  in  some  of  their 
accounts  respecting  the  life  of  Jesus,  or  his  resurrection.  Be  it  so; 
what  then  ?  Does  this  difference,  admitting  it  to  be  real,  destroy  the 
credibility  of  the  Gospel  history  in  any  of  its  essential  points  ?  Cer¬ 
tainly,  in  my  opinion,  not.  As  I  look  upon  this  to  be  a  general  an¬ 
swer  to  most  of  your  deistical  objections,  I  profess  my  sincerity  in 
saying,  that  I  consider  it  as  a  true  and  sufficient  answer ;  and  I  leave 
it  to  your  consideration.  I  have,  purposely,  in  the  whole  of  this 
discussion,  been  silent  as  to  the  inspiration  of  the  evangelists;  w'ell 
knowing  that  you  would  have  rejected,  with  scorn,  any  thing  I 
could  have  said  on  that  point:  but,  in  disputing  with  a  deist,  I  do 
most  solemnly  contend,  that  the  Christian  religion  is  true,  and 
worthy  of  all  acceptation,  w'hether  the  evangelists  were  inspired  or 
not. 

Unbelievers,  in  general,  wish  to  conceal  their  sentiments ;  they 
have  a  decent  respect  for  public  opinion;  are  cautious  of  affronting 
the  religion  of  their  country ;  fearful  of  undermining  the  founda¬ 
tions  of  civil  society.  Some  few  have  been  more  daring,  but  less 
judicious;  and  have,  without  disguise,  professed  their  unbelief. 
But  you  are  the  first  w'ho  ever  swore  that  he  was  an  infidel,  con¬ 
cluding  your  deistical  creed  with— So  help  me  Godl  I  pray  that 
God  may  help  you ;  that  he  may,  through  the  influence  of  his  floly 
Spirit,  bring  you  to  a  right  mind  ;  convert  you  to  the  religion  of  his 
Son,  whom,  out  of  his  abundant  love  to  mankind,  he  sent  into  the 
world,  that  all  who  believe  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  ever¬ 
lasting  life. 

You  swear,  that  you  think  the  Christian  religion  is  not  true.  I 
pve  full  credit  to  your  oath ;  it  is  an  oath  in  confirmation — of  w’hat? 
Of  an  opinion.  It  proves  the  sincerity  of  your  declaration  of  your 
opinion ;  but  the  opinion,  notwithstanding  the  oath,  may  be  either 
true  or  fd.lse.  Permit  me  to  produce  to  you  an  oath  not  confirming 
an  opinion,  but  a  fact ;  it  is  the  oath  of  St.  Paul,  when  he  swears  to 
the  Galatians,  that  in  what  he  told  them  of  his  miraculous  conver¬ 
sion  he  did  not  tell  a  lie  :  “  Now  the  things  wliich  I  write  unto  you, 
behold,  before  God‘,  I  lie  not do  but  give  that  credit  to  Paul  which 
f  give  to  you,  do  but  consider  the  difference  between  an  opinion 
and  a  fact,  and  I  shall  not  despair  of  your  becoming  a  Christian. 

Deism,  you  say,  consists  in  a  belief  of  one  God,  and  an  imitation 
af  his  moral  character,  or  the  practice  of  what  is  called  virtue ;  and 
in  this  (as  far  as  religion  is  concerned)  you  rest  all  your  hopes. 
There  is  nothing  in  deism  but  what  is  in  Christianity,  but  there  is 
Tiuch  in  Christianity  which  is  not  in  deism.  The  Christian  has  no 
foubt  concerning  a  future  state  ;  every  deist,  from  Plato  to  Tiiomas 
I  aine,  is  on  this  subject  overwhelmed  w’ith  doubts  insuperable  by 
1  liman  reason.  The  Christian  has  no  misgivings  as  to  the  pardon 
>1  Jenitent  sinners,  through  the  intercession  of  a  mediator;  the 


170  Watsoii^s  Apology 

deist  is  harassed  with  apprehension,  lest  the  moral  justice  of  God 
should  demand,  with  inexorable  rigor,  punishment  for  transgression. 
The  Christian  has  no  doubt  concerning  the  lawfulness  and  the 
efficacy  of  prayer  ^  the  deist  is  disturbed  on  this  point  by  abstract 
considerations  concerning  the  goodness  of  God,  which  wants  not  to 
be  entreated ;  concerning  his  foresight,  which  has  no  need  oi  our 
information ;  concerning  his  immutability,  which  cannot  be  changed 
throu""!!  our  supplication.  The  Christian  admits  the  providence  oi 
God,  and  the  liberty  of  human  actions ;  the  deist  is  involved  in 
great  difficulties,  when  he  undertakes  the  proof  of  either,  i  he 
Christian  has  assurance,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  will  help  his  inhnn- 
ities ;  the  deist  does  not  deny  the  possibility,  that  God  may  have 
access  to  the  human  mind,  but  he  has  no  ground  to  believe  the  tact 
of  his  either  enlightening  the  understanding,  influencing  the  will, 
or  purifying  the  heart. 


LETTER  IX. 

“  Those,”  you  say,  “  who  are  not  much  acquainted  with  ecclesi¬ 
astical  history,  may  suppose,  that  the  book  called  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  has  existed  ever  since  the  time  of  J esus  Christ,  but  the  fact 
is  historically  otherwise  ;  there  was  no  such  book  as  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament  till  more  than  three  hundred  years  after  the  time  that  Christ 
is  said  to  have  lived.”  This  paragraph  is  calculated  to  mislead 
common  readers ;  it  is  necessary  to  unfold  its  meaning.  The  book, 
called  the  New  Testament,  consists  of  twenty-seven  different  parts ; 
concerning  seven  of  these,  viz.  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  that  of 
James,  the  second  of  Peter,  the  second  of  John,  the  third  of  John, 
that  of  Jude,  and  the  Revelations,  there  were  at  first  some  doubts; 
and  the  question,  whether  they  should  be  received  intb  the  canon, 
might  be  decided,  as  all  questions  concerning  opinions  must  be,  by 
vote.  With  respect  to  the  other  twenty  parts,  those  w'ho  are  most 
acquainted  with  ecclesiastical  history  will  tell  you,  as  Du  Pin  does 
after  Eusebius,  that  they  were  owned  as  canonical  at  all  times,  and 
by  all  Christians.  Whether  the  council  of  Laodicea  was  held  be¬ 
fore  or  after  that  of  Nice,  is  not  a  settled  point ;  all  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  except  the  Revelation,  are  enumerated  as  canoni¬ 
cal  in  the  Constitutions  of  that,  council ;  but  it  is  a  great  mistake  to 
suppose,  that  the  greatest  part  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
were  not  in  general  use  among  Christians,  long  before  the  council 
of  Laodicea  was  held.  This  is  not  merely  my  opinion  on  the  sub¬ 
ject,  it  is  the  opinion  of  one  much  better  acquainted  with  ecclesias¬ 
tical  history  than  I  am;  and,  probably,  than  you  are — Mosheim. 
“  The  opinions,”  says  this  author,  “  or  rather  the  conjectures,  of  the 
learned,  concerning  the  time  when  the  books  of  the  New  Testin 
merit  were  collected  into  one  volume,  as  also  about  tire  authors  of 


for  the  Bible.  171 

that  collection,  are  extremely  different.  This  important  question  is 
attended  with  great  and  almost  insuperable  difficulties  to  us  in  these 
latter  times.  It  is,  however,  sufficient  for  us  to  know,  that,  before 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  the  greatest  part  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  were  read  in  every  Christian  society  through¬ 
out  tlie  world,  and  received  as  a  divine  rule  of  faith  and  manners. 
Hence  it  appears,  that  these  sacred  writings  were  carefully  sepa¬ 
rated  from  several  human  compositions  upon  the  same  subject, 
cither  ])y  some  of  the  apostles  themselves,  who  lived  so  long,  or  by 
their  disciples  and  successors,  who  were  spread  abroad  through  all 
nations.  We  are  well  assured,  that  the  four  Gospels  were  collected 
during  the  life  of  Sl  John,  and  that  the  three  first  received  the  ap¬ 
probation  of  this  divine  apostle.  And  why  may  we’  not  suppose, 
that  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  gathered  together 
at  the  same  time  ?  What  renders  this  highly  probable  is,  that  the 
most  urgent  necessity  required  its  being  done.  For,  not  long  after 
Christ’s  ascension  mto  heaven,  several  histories  of  his  life  and  doc¬ 
trines,  full  of  pious  frauds  and  fabulous  wonders,  were  composed 
by  persons,  whose  intentions,  perhaps,  were  not  bad,  but  whose 
writings  discovered  the  greatest  superstition  and  ignorance.  Nor 
was  this  all ;  productions  appeared,  which  were  imposed  on  the 
world  by  fraudulent  men  as  the  writings  of  the  holy  apostles.  These 
apocryphal  and  spurious  writings  must  have  produced  a  sad  con¬ 
fusion,  and  I'endered  both  the  history  and  the  doctrine  of  Christ  un¬ 
certain,  had  not  the  rulers  of  the  church  used  all  possible  care  and 
diligence  in  separating  the  books,  that  were  truly  apostolical  and 
divine,  from  all  that  spurious  trash,  and  conveying  them  down  to 
posterity  in  one  volume.” 

Did  you  ever  read  the  apology  for  the  Christians,  which  Justin 
Martyr  presented  to  the  emperor  Antoninus  Pius,  to  the  senate,  and 
people  of  Rome  ?  I  should  sooner  expect  a  falsity  in  a  petition, 
which  any  body  of  persecuted  men,  imploring  justice,  should  pre¬ 
sent  to  the  king  and  parliament  of  Great  Britain,  than  in  this 
apology.  Yet  in  this  apology,  which  was  presented  not  fifty  years 
after  the  death  of  St.  John,  not  only  parts  of  all  the  four  Gospels 
are  quoted,  but  it  is  expressly  said,  that  on  the  day  called  Sunday  a 
portion  of  them  was  read  in  the  public  assemblies  of  the  Christians. 
I  forbear  pursuing  this  matter  further,  else  it  might  easily  be  shown, 
that  probably  the  Gospels,  and  certainly  some  of  St.  Paul’s  epistles, 
were  knowTi  to  Clement,  Ignatius,  and  Polycarp,  contemporaries 
TA'ith  the  apostles  These  men  cotdd  not  quote  or  refer  to  books 
which  did  not  exist;  and  therefore,  though  you  could  make  it  out, 
that  the  fx)ok  called  the  New  Testament  did  not  formally  exist  un¬ 
der  that  title  till  three  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  Christ,  yet  I 
hold  it  to  be  a  certain  fact,  that  all  the  books  of  which  it  is  com¬ 
posed  were  written,  and  most  of  them  received  by  all  Christians, 
within  a  few  years  after  his  death. 

You  raise  a  difficulty  relative  to  the  time  which  intervened  be- 
tiveen  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  who  had  said,  that  the 
Son  of  JMan  should  be  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of 


172 


Watson's  Apology 

the  earth.  Are  you  ignorant,  then,  that  the  Jews  used  the  phrase 
three  days  and  three  nights,  to  denote  what  we  understand  by  three 
days?  It  is  said  in  Genesis,  chap.  vii.  12,  “The  rain  was  iipon  the 
earth  forty  days  and  forty  nights ;  and  this  is  equivalent  to  the  ex¬ 
pression  (ver  17.)  “  And  the  flood  was  forty  days  upon  the  earth.” 
Instead  then  of  saying,  three  days  and  three  nights,  let  us  simply 
say  three  days ;  and  you  will  not  object  to  Christ’s  being  three 
days,  Friday,  Saturday,  and  Sunday,  in  the  heart  of  the  earth.  1 
do  not  say  that  he  was  in  the  grave  the  whole  of  either  Friday  oi 
Sunday  ;  but  a  hundred  instances  might  be  produced,  from  writers 
of  all  nations,  in  which  a  part  of  a  day  is  spoken  of  as  the  Avhole. 
Thus  much  for  the  defence  of  the  historical  part  of  the  New  Tes 
lament. 

You  have  introduced  an  account  of  Faustus,  as  denying  the 
genuineness  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  Will  you  per¬ 
mit  that  great  scholar  in  sacred  literature,  Michaelis,  to  tell  you 
something  about  this  Faustus  ?  “  He  was  ignorant,  as  were  most  of 
the  African  writers,  of  the  Greek  language,  and  acquainted  with 
the  New  Testament  merely  through  the  channel  of  the  Latin  trans¬ 
lation:  he  was  not  only  devoid  of  a  sufficient  fund  of  learning,  but 
illiterate  in  the  highest  degree.  An  argument  which  he  brings 
against  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  affords  sufficient  ground  for 
this  assertion;  for  he  contends,  that  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew 
could  not  have  been  written  by  St.  Matthew  himself,  because  he  is 
always  mentioned  in  the  third  person.”  You  know  who  has  ar¬ 
gued  like  Faustus,  but  I  did  not  think  myself  authorized  on  that 
account  to  call  you  illiterate  in  the  highest  degree  ;  but  Michaelis 
makes  a  still  more  severe  conclusion  concerning  Faustus,  and  he 
extends  his  observation  to  every  man  who  argued  like  him.  “  A 
man  capable  of  such  an  argument  must  have  been  ignorant,  not 
only  of  the  Greek  writers,  the  knowledge  of  which  could  not  have 
been  expected  from  Faustus,  but  even  of  the  Commentaries  of 
Ca3sar.  And  were  it  thought  improbable,  that  so  heavy  a  charge 
could  be  laid  with  justice  on  the  side  of  his  knowledge,  it  would 
fall  with  double  weight  on  the  side  of  his  honesty,  and  induce  us 
to  suppose,  that,  preferring  the  arts  of  sophistry  to  the  plainness  of 
truth,  he  maintained  opinions  which  he  believed  to  be  false.” 
(Marsh’s  Transl.)  Never  more,  I  think,  shall  we  hear  of  Moses  not 
being  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  on  account  of  its  being  written 
in  the  third  person. 

Not  being  able  to  produce  any  argument  to  render  questionable 
either  the  genuineness  or  the  authenticity  of  St.  Paul’s  Epistles, 
you  tell  us,  that  “  it  is  a  matter  of  no  great  importance  by  whom 
they  were  written,  since  the  writer,  whoever  he  was,  attempts  to 
prove  his  doctrine  by  argument:  he  does  not  pretend  to  have  been 
witness  to  any  of  the  scenes  told  of  the  resurrection  and  ascension, 
and  he  declares  that  he  had  not  believed  them.”  That  Paul  had 
so  far  resisted  the  evidence  which  the  apostles  had  given  of  the  re¬ 
surrection  and  ascension  of  Jesus,  as  to  be  a  persecutor  of  the  dis¬ 
ciples  of  Christ,  is  certain ;  but  I  do  not  remember  the  place  where 


173 


for  the  Bible. 

he  declares  that  he  had  not  believed  them.  The  high  priest  and 
the  senate  of  the  children  of  Israel  did  not  deny  the  reality  of  the 
miracles  which  had  been  wrought  by  Peter  and  the  apostles ;  they 
did  not  contradict  their  testimony  concerning  the  resurrection  and 
the  ascension  ;  but  whether  they  believed  it  or  not,  they  were  fired 
with  indignation,  and  took  counsel  to  put  the  apostles  to  death ;  and 
this  was  also  the  temper  of  Paul ;  whether  he  believed  or  did  not 
believe  the  story  of  the  resurrection,  he  was  exceedingly  mad 
against  the  saints.  The  writer  of  Paul’s  Epistles  does  not  attempt 
to  prove  his  doctrine  by  argument ;  he  in  many  places  tells  us,  that 
his  doctrine  was  not  taught  him  by  man,  or  any  invention  of  his 
own,  which  required  the  ingenuity  of  argument  to  prove  it:  “I 
certify  you,  brethren,  that  the  Gospel,  which  was  preached  of  me, 
is  not  after  man ;  for  I  neither  received  it  of  man,  neither  was  I 
taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ.”  Paul  does  not 
pretend  to  have  been  a  witness  of  the  story  of  the  resurrection,  but 
he  does  much  more ;  he  asserts,  that  he  was  himself  a  witness  of 
the  resurrection.  After  enumerating  many  appearances  of  Jesus  to 
his  disciples,  Paul  says  of  himself,  “  La^t  of  all,  he  was  seen  of  me 
also,  as  of  one  born  out  of  due  time.”  Whether  you  will  admit 
Paul  to  have  been  a  true  witness  or  not,  you  cannot  deny  that  he 
pretends  to  have  been  a  witness  of  the  resurrection. 

The  story  of  his  being  struck  to  the  ground,  as  he  was  journeying 
to  Damascus,  has  nothing  in  it,  you  say,  miraculous  or  exhaordinary : 
you  represent  him  as  struck  by  lightning.  It  is  somewhat  extraor¬ 
dinary  for  a  man,  who  is  struck  by  lightning,  to  have,  at  the  very 
time,  full  possession  of  his  understanding ;  to  hear  a  voice  issuing 
from  the  lightning,  speaking  to  him  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  calling 
him  by  his  name,  and  entering  into  conversation  with  him.  His 
companions,  you  say,  appear  not  to  have  suffered  in  the  same  man¬ 
ner  :  the  greater  the  wonder.  If  it  was  a  common  storm  of  thunder 
and  lightning  which  struck  Paul  and  all  his  companions  to  the 
ground,  it  is  somewhat  extraordinary  that  he  alone  should  be  hurt; 
and  that,  notwithstanding  his  being  struck  blind  by  lightning,  he 
should  in  other  respects  be  so  little  hurt,  as  to  be  immediately  able 
to  walk  into  the  city  of  Damascus.  So  difficult  is  it  to  oppose  truth 
by  an  hypothesis  !  In  the  character  of  Paul  you  discover  a  great  deal 
of  violence  and  fanaticism ;  and  such  men,  you  observe,  are  never  ^ 
good  moral  evidences  of  any  doctrine  they  teach.  Read,  Sir,  Lord 
Lyttleton’s  Observations  on  the  Conversion  and  Apostleship  of  St. 
Paul,  and  I  think  you  will  be  convinced  of  the  contrary.  That 
elegant  writer  thus  expresses  his  opinion  on  this  subject :  “  Besides 
all  the  proofs  of  the  Christian  religion,  which  may  be  drawn  from 
the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  from  the  necessary  connexion 
it  has  with  the  whole  system  of  the  Jewish  religion,  from  the  mira¬ 
cles  of  Christ,  and  from  the  evidence  given  of  his  resurrection  by 
all  the  other  apostles,  I  think  the  conversion  and  apostleship  of  St. 
Paul  alone,  duly  considered,  is,  of  itself,  a  demonstration  sufficient 
to  prove  Christianity  to  be  a  divine  revelation.”  I  hope  this  opinion 
will  have  some  weight  with  you ;  it  is  not  the  opinion  of  a  lying 
P2 


174 


Waison'^s  Apology 

Bible-prophet,  of  a  stupid  evangelist,  or  of  an  a  6  ab  priest,  but  of  a 
learned  layman,  whose  illustrious  rank  received  splendor  from  his 
talents. 

You  are  displeased  with  St.  Paul  “for  setting  out  to  prove  the 
resurrection  of  the  same  body.”  You  know,  I  presume,  that  the 
resurrection  of  the  same  body  is  not,  by  all,  admitted  to  be  a  scrip¬ 
tural  doctrine.  “In  the  New  Testament  (wherein,  I  think,  are  con¬ 
tained  all  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith),  I  find  our  Saviour  and 
the  apostles  to  preach  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the  resur¬ 
rection  from  the  dead,  in  many  places  ;  but  I  do  not  remember  any 
place  where  the  resurrection  ot  the  same  body  is  so  much  as  men¬ 
tioned.”  This  observation  of  Mr.  Locke  I  so  far  adopt,  as  to  deny 
that  you  can  produce  any  place  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  wherein 
he  sets  out  to  prove  the  resurrection  of  the  same  body.  I  do  not 
uestion  the  possibility  of  the  resurrection  of  the  same  body,  and  I 
am  not  ignorant  of  the  manner  in  which  some  learned  men  have  ex¬ 
plained  it  (somewhat  after  the  way  of  your  vegetative  speck  in  the 
kernel  of  a  peaeh) ;  but  as  you  are  discrediting  St.  Paul’s  doctrine, 
you  ought  to  show,  that  what  you  attempt  to  discredit  is  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  apostle.  As  a  matter  of  choice,  you  had  rather  have  a 
better  body— you  will  have  a  better  body,  “  your  natural  body  will 
be  raised  a  spiritual  body,”  your  corruptible  will  put  on  incorrup¬ 
tion.  You  are  so  much  out  of  humor  with  your  present  body,  that 
you  inform  us,  every  animal  in  the  creation  excels  us  in  something. 
Now  I  had  always  thought,  that  the  single  circumstance  of  our  hav¬ 
ing  hands,  and  their  having  none,  gave  us  an  infinite  superiority, 
not  only  over  insects,  fishes,  snails,  and  spiders  (which  you  repre¬ 
sent  as  excelling  us  in  locomotive  powers),  but  over  all  the  animals 
of  the  creation ;  and  enabled  us,  in  the  language  of  Cicero,  describ¬ 
ing  the  manifold  utility  of  our  hands,  to  make  as  it  were  a  new  na¬ 
ture  of  things.  As  to  what  you  say  about  the  consciousness  of  ex¬ 
istence  being  the  only  conceivable  idea  of  a  future  life,  it  proves 
nothing,  either  for  or  against  the  resurrection  of  a  body,  or  of  the 
same  body;  it  does  not  inform  us,  whether  to  any  or  to  what  sub¬ 
stance,  material  or  immaterial,  this  consciousness  is  annexed.  I 
leave  it,  however,  to  others,  who  do  not  admit  personal  identity  to 
consist  in  consciousness,  to  dispute  with  you  on  this  point,  and  will¬ 
ingly  subscribe  to  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Locke,  “  that  nothing  but  con¬ 
sciousness  can  unite  remote  existences  into  the  same  person.” 

From  a  caterpillar’s  passing  into  a  torpid  state  resembling  death, 
and  afterwards  appearing  a  splendid  butterfly,  and  from  the  (sup¬ 
posed)  consciousness  of  existence  which  the  animal  had  in  these 
dij^rent  states,  you  ask,  Why  must  I  believe,  that  the  resurrection 
of  the  same  body  is  necessary  to  continue  in  me  the  consciousness 
of  existence  hereafter  ?  1  do  not  dislike  analogical  reasoning,  when 
applied  to  proper  objects  and  kept  within  due  bounds;  but  where 
IS  it  said  in  Scripture,  that  the  resurrection  of  the  same  body  is 
necessary  to  continue  in  you  the  consciousness  of  existence?  Those, 
who  admit  a  conscious  state  of  the  soul  between  death  and  the 
fesiurection,  will  contend,  that  the  soul  is  the  substance  in  which 


175 


for  the  Bible. 

consciousness  is  continued  without  interruption :  those,  who  deny 
the  intermediate  state  of  the  soul  as  a  state  of  consciousness,  will 
contend,  that  consciousness  is  not  destroyed  by  death,  but  suspended 
by  it,  as  it  is  suspended  during  a  sound  sleep,  and  that  it  may  as 
easily  be  restored  after  death  as  after  sleep,  during  which  the  facid- 
ties  of  the  soul  are  not  extinct  but  dormant.  Those,  who  think  that 
the  soul  is  nothing  distinct  from  the  compages  of  the  body,  not  a 
substance  but  a  mere  qualify,  wdll  maintain,  that  the  consciousness 
appertaining  to  every  individual  person  is  not  lost  when  the  body  is 
destroyed ;  that  it  is  known  to  God,  and  may,  at  the  general  resur¬ 
rection,  be  annexed  to  any  system  of  matter  he  may  think  fit,  or  to 
that  particular  compages  to  which  it  belonged  in  this  life. 

In  reading  your  book  I  have  been  frequently  shocked  at  the  viru¬ 
lence  of  your  zeal,  at  the  indecorum  of  your  abuse,  in  applying  vul¬ 
gar  and  offensive  epithets  to  men,  who  have  been  held,  and  who 
will  long,  I  trust,  continue  to  be  holden,  in  high  estimation.  I  know 
that  the  scar  of  calumny  is  seldom  wholly  effiiced,  it  remains  long 
after  the  wound  is  healed ;  and  your  abuse  of  holy  men  and  holy 
things  will  be  remembered  when  your  arguments  against  them  are 
refuted  and  forgotten.  Moses  you  term  an  arrogant  coxcomb,  a 
chief  assassin;  Aaron,  Joshua,  Samuel,  David,  monsters  and  im¬ 
postors;  the  Jewish  kings,  a  parcel  of  rascals;  Jeremiah  and  the 
rest  of  the  prophets,  liars;  and  Paul  a  fool,  for  having  written  one 
of  the  sublimest  compositions,  and  on  the  most  important  subject, 
that  ever  occupied  the  mind  of  man — the  lesson  in  our  burial  ser¬ 
vice  :  this  lesson  you  call  a  doubtful  jargon,  as  destitute  of  meaning 
as  the  tolling  of  the  bell  at  the  funeral.  Men  of  low  condition ! 
pressed  down,  as  you  often  are,  by  calamities  generally  incident  to 
human  nature,  and  groaning  under  burthens  of  misery  peculiar  to 
your  condition,  what  thought  you  when  you  heard  this  lesson  read 
at  the  funeral  of  your  child,  your  parent,  or  your  friend?  Was  it 
mere  jargon  to  you,  as  destitute  of  meaning  as  the  tolling  of  a  bell  ? 
No.  You  understood  from  it,  that  you  w'ould  not  all  sleep,  but  that 
you  would  all  be  changed  in  a  moment  at  the  last  trump ;  you  un¬ 
derstood  from  it,  that  this  corruptible  must  put  on  incorruption,  that 
this  mortal  must  put  on  immortality,  and  that  death  would  be  swal¬ 
lowed  up  in  victory ;  you  understood  from  it,  that  if  (notwithstand¬ 
ing  profane  attempts  to  subvert  your  faith)  ye  continue  stedfast,  un¬ 
movable,  always  abounding  in  the  work  of  the  Lord,  your  labor 
will  not  be  in  vain. 

You  seem  fond  of  displaying  your  skill  in  science  and  philosophy ; 
you  speak  more  than  once  of  Euclid ;  and,  in  censuring  St.  Paul, 
you  intimate  to  us,  that  when  the  apostle  says,  “  one  star  differeth 
from  another  star  in  glory,”  he  ought  to  have  said,  in  distance.  All 
men  see  that  one  star  differeth  frorn  another  star  in  glory  or  bright¬ 
ness  ;  but  few  men  know,  that  their  difference  in  brightness  arises 
from  their  difference  in  distance ;  and  I  beg  leave  to  say,  that  even 
you,  philosopher  as  you  are,  do  not  know  it.  You  make  an  assump¬ 
tion,  which  you  cannot  prove,  that  the  stars  are  equal  in  magnitude, 
and  placed  at  different  distances  fiom  the  earth ;  but  you  catiiiot 


176 


Watson^ s  Apology 

prove  that  they  are  not  different  in  magnitude,  and  placed  at  equal 
distances,  though  none  of  them  may  be  so  near  to  the  earth  as  to 
have  any  sensible  annual  parallax.  I  beg  pardon  of  my  readers  for 
touching  upon  this  subject;  but  it  really  moves  one’s  indignation,  tc 
see  a  smattering  in  philosophy  urged  as  an  argument  against  the 
veracity  of  an  apostle.  “  Little  learning  is  a  dangerous  thing.” 

Paul,  you  say,  affects  to  be  a  naturalist ;  and  to  prove  (you  might 
more  properly  have  said  illustrate)  his  system  of  resurrection  from 
the  principles  of  vegetation :  “  Thou  fool,”  says  he,  “  that  which 
thou  sow^est  is  not  quickened  except  it  die ;”  to  which  one  might  re¬ 
ply,  in  his  own  language,  and  say,  “  Thou  fool,  Paul,  that  which 
thou  sowest  is  not  quickened  except  it  die  not.”  It  may  be  seen,  I 
think,  from  this  passage,  who  affects  to  be  a  naturalist,  to  be  ac¬ 
quainted  with  the  microscopical  discoveries  of  modern  times ;  which 
were  probably  neither  known  to  Paul,  nor  to  the  Corinthians ;  and 
which,  had  they  been  known  to  them  both,  would  have  been  of 
little  use  in  the  illustration  of  the  subject  of  the  resurrection.  Paul 
said,  “that  w'hich  thou  sowest  is  not  quickened  except  it  die.” 
Every  husbandman  in  Corinth,  though  unable,  perhaps,  to  define 
the  term  death,  would  understand  the  apostle’s  phrase  in  a  popular 
sense,  and  agree  with  him,  that  a  grain  of  wheat  must  become  rot¬ 
ten  in  the  ground  before  it  could  sprout ;  and  that,  as  God  raised 
from  a  rotten  grain  of  wheat,  the  roots,  the  stem,  the  leaves,  the  ear 
of  a  new  plant,  he  might  also  cause  a  new  body  to  spring  up  from 
the  rotten  carcass  in  the  grave.  Doctor  Clarke  observes,  “  In  like 
manner  as  in  every  grain  of  corn  there  is  contained  a  minute,  insen¬ 
sible  seminal  principle,  which  is  itself  the  entire  future  blade  and 
ear,  and  in  due  season,  when  all  the  rest  of  the  grain  is  corrupted, 
evolves  and  unfolds  itself  visibly  to  the  eye ;  so  our  present  mortal 
and  corruptible  body  may  be  but  the  exuvice,  as  it  were,  of  some 
hidden,  and,  at  present,  insensible  principle  (possibly  the  present 
seat  of  the  soul),  which,  at  the  resurrection,  shall  discover  itself  in 
its  proper  form.”  1  do  not  agree  with  this  great  man  (for  such  I  es¬ 
teem  him)  in  this  philosophical  conjecture  ;  but  the  quotation  may 
serve  to  show  you,  that  the  germ  does  not  evolve  and  unfold  itself 
visibly  to  the  eye  till  all  the  rest  of  the  grain  is  corrupted ;  that  is, 
in  the  language  and  meaning  of  St.  Paul,  till  it  dies.  Though  the 
authority  of  Jesus  may  have  as  little  weight  with  you  as  that  of 
Paul,  yet  it  may  not  be  improper  to  quote  to  you  our  Saviour’s  ex¬ 
pression,  when  he  foretells  the  numerous  disciples  which  his  death 
would  produce :  “Except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and 
die,  it  abideth  alone  :  but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit.” 
You  perceive  from  this,  that  the  Jews  thought  the  death  of  the  grain 
was  necessary  to  its  reproduction.  Hence,  every  one  may  see  what 
little  reason  you  had  to  object  to  the  apostle’s  popular  illustration  of 
the  possibility  of  a  resurrection.  Had  he  known  as  much  as  any 
naturalist  in  Europe  does,  of  the  progress  of  an  animal  from  one 
state  to  another,  as  from  a  worm  to  a  butterfly  (which,  you  think, 
applies  to  the  case),  I  am  of  opinion  he  would  not  have  used  that 


for  the  Bible.  177 

llustrarion  in  preference  to  what  he  has  used,  which  is  obvious  and 
satisfactory. 

Whether  the  fourteen  epistles  ascribed  to  Paul  were  written  by 
him  or  not,  is,  in  your  judgment,  a  matter  of  indifference.  So  far 
from  being  a  matter  of  indifference,  I  consider  the  genuineness  of 
St.  Paul’s  epistles  to  be  a  matter  of  the  greatest  importance ;  for,  if 
the  epistles  ascribed  to  Paul  were  written  by  him  (and  there  is  un¬ 
questionable  proof  that  they  were,)  it  will  be  difficult  for  you,  or 
for  any  man,  upon  fair  principles  of  sound  reasoning,  to  deny  that 
the  Christian  religion  is  true.  The  argument  is  a  short  one,  and 
obvious  to  every  capacity.  It  stands  thus : — St.  Paul  WTote  several 
letters  to  those  whom,  in  different  countries,  he  had  converted  to 
the  Christian  faith ;  in  these  letters  he  affirms  two  things : — First, 
that  he  had  wrought  miracles  in  their  presence.  Secondly,  that 
many  of  themselves  had  received  the  gift  of  tongues,  and  other 
miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  persons  to  whom  these 
letters  were  addressed  must,  on  reading  them,  have  certainly 
known,  wdiether  Paul  affirmed  what  was  true,  or  told  a  plain  lie  ; 
they  must  have  known,  whether  they  had  seen  him  work  miracles  ; 
they  must  have  been  conscious,  whether  they  themselves  did  or 
did  not  possess  any  miraculous  gifts.  Now  can  you,  or  any  man, 
believe  for  a  moment,  that  Paul  (a  man,  certainly,  of  great  alDilities) 
would  have  written  public  letters,  full  of  lies,  and  which  could  not 
fail  of  being  discovered  to  be  lies,  as  soon  as  his  letters  were  read  ? 
Paul  could  not  be  guilty  of  falsehood  in  these  two  points,  or  in 
either  of  them ;  and  if  either  of  them  be  true,  the  Christian  reli¬ 
gion  is  true.  References  to  -these  two  points  are  frequent  in  St. 
Paul’s  epistles.  I  will  mention  only  a  few.  In  his  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  he  says  (chap.  hi.  2 — 5.)  “This  only  w’ould  I  learn  of 
you,  received  ye  the  Spirit  (gifts  of  the  Spirit)  by  the  w^orks  of  the 
law  ?  He  ministereth  to  you  the  Spirit,  and  worketh  miracles  among 
you.”  To  the  Thessalonians  he  says  (1  Thess.  chap.  i.  5.)  “  Our 
Gospel  came  not  unto  you  in  word  only,  but  also  in  power,  and  in 
the  Holy  Ghost.”  To  the  Corinthians  he  thus  expresses  himself  (I 
Cor.  ii.  4.)  “  My  preaching  was  not  with  enticing  words  of  man’s 
wisdom,  but  in  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power  and 
he  adds  the  reason  for  his  working  miracles,  “  That  your  faith  should 
not  stand  in  the  wisdom  of  men,  but  in  the  power  of  God.”  With 
what  alacrity  would  the  faction  at  Corinth,  which  opposed  the  apos¬ 
tle,  have  laid  hold  of  this  and  many  similar  declarations  in  the  let¬ 
ter,  had  they  been  able  to  have  detected  any  falsehood  in  them  ? 
There  is  no  need  to  multiply  words  on  so  clear  a  point ;  the  genu¬ 
ineness  of  Paul’s  Epistles  proves  their  authenticity,  independently 
of  every  other  proof;  for  it  is  absurd  in  the  extreme  to  suppose 
him,  under  circumstances  of  obvious  detection,  capable  of  ad¬ 
vancing  what  was  not  true  ;  and  if  Paul’s  Epistles  be  both  genuine 
and  authentic,  the  Christian  religion  is  true.  Think  of  this  ar¬ 
gument. 

You  close  your  observations  in  the  following  manner: — “Should 
the  Bible  (meaning,  as  I  have  before  remarked,  tho  Old  Testament) 


17S  Walson^s  Apology 

and  Testament  hereafter  fall,  it  is  not  I  that  have  been  the  occa¬ 
sion.”  You  look,  I  think,  upon  your  production  with  a  parent’s 
partial  eye,  when  you  speak  of  it  in  such  a  style  of  self-compla¬ 
cency.  The  Bible,  Sir,  has  withstood  the  learning  of  Porphyry, 
and  the  power  of  Julian,  to  say  nothing  of  the  Manichean  Faustus; 
it  has  resisted  the  genius  of  Bolingbroke,  and  the  wit  of  Voltaire,  to 
say  nothing  of  a  numerous  herd  of  inferior  assailants ;  and  it  will 
not  fall  by  your  force.  You  have  barbed  anew  the  blunted  arrows 
of  former  adversaries ;  you  have  feathered  them  with  blasphemy 
and  ridicule ;  dipped  them  in  your  deadliest  poison ;  aimed  them 
with  your  utmost  skill ;  shot  them  against  the  shield  of  faith  with 
your  utmost  vigor;  but,  like  the  feeble  javelin  of  aged  Priam, 
they  will  scarcely  reach  the  mark,  will  fall  to  the  ground  without  a 
stroke. 


LETTER  X. 

The  remaining  part  of  your  work  can  hardly  be  made  the  subject 
of  animadversion.  It  principally  consists  of  unsupported  assertions, 
abusive  appellations,  illiberal  sarcasms,  “  strifes  of  words,  profane 
babblings,  and  oppositions  of  science  falsely  so  called.”  I  am  hurt 
at  being,  in  mere  justice  to  the  subject,  under  the  necessity  of 
using  such  harsh  language;  and  am  sincerely  sorry,  that,  from 
what  cause  I  know  not,  your  mind  has  received  a  wrong  bias  in 
every  point  respecting  revealed  religion.  You  are  capable  of  bet¬ 
ter  things ;  for  there  is  a  philosophical  sublimity  in  some  of  your 
ideas,  when  you  speak  of  the  Supreme  Being,  as  the  Creator  of  the 
universe.  That  you  may  not  accuse  me  of  disrespect,  in  passing 
over  any  part  of  your  work,  without  bestowing  proper  attention 
upon  it,  I  wall  w'ait  upon  you  through  what  you  call  your  con¬ 
clusion. 

You  refer  your  reader  to  the  former  part  of  the  Age  of  Reason  ; 
in  which  you  have  spoken  of  what  you  esteem  three  frauds,  mys¬ 
tery,  miracle,  and  prophecy.  I  have  not  at  hand  the  book  to  which 
you  refer,  and  know  not  what  you  have  said  on  these  subjects ; 
they  are  subjects  of  great  importance,  and  we,  probably,  should 
differ  essentially  in  our  opinion  concerning  them ;  but,  I  confess,  I 
am  not  sorry  to  be  excused  from  examining  what  you  have  said  on 
these  points.  The  specimen  of  your  reasoning,  which  is  now  be¬ 
fore  me,  has  taken  from  me  every  inclination  to  trouble  either  my 
reader,  or  myself,  wdth  any  observations  on  your  former  book. 

You  admit  the  possibility  of  God’s  revealing  his  will  to  man ; 
yet  “the  thing  so  revealed,”  you  say,  “ is  revelation  to  the  person 
only  to  whom  it  is  made  ;  his  account  of  it  to  another  is  not  revela¬ 
tion.”  This  is  true;  his  account  is  simple  testimony.  You  add 
there  is  no  “  possible  criterion  to  judge  of  the  truth  of  what  he 


for  the  Bible.  179 

says.”  This  I  positively  deny ;  and  contend,  that  a  real  miracle, 
performed  in  attestation  of  a  revealed  truth,  is  a  certain  criterion 
by  which  we  may  judge  of  the  truth  of  that  attestation.  I  am  per¬ 
fectly  aware  of  the  objections  which  may  be  made  to  this  position  ; 
I  have  examined  them  with  care;  I  acknowledge  them  to  be  of 
weight ;  but  I  do  not  speak  unadvisedly,  or  as  wishing  to  dictate  to 
other  men,  when  I  say,  that  I  am  persuaded  the  position  is  true.  So 
thought  Moses,  when,  in  the  matter  of  Korah,  he  said  to  the  Israel¬ 
ites,  “  If  these  men  die  the  common  death  of  all  men,  then  the 
Lord  hath  not  sent  me.”  So  thought  Elijah,  when  he  said,  “  Lord 
God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Israel,  let  it  be  known  this  day,  that 
thou  art  God  in  Israel,  and  that  I  am  thy  servant and  the  people, 
before  whom  he  spake,  were  of  the  same  opinion ;  for,  when  the 
lire  of  the  Lord  foil,  and  consumed  the  burnt-sacrifice,  they  said, 
“The  Lord  he  is  the  God.”  So  thought  our  Saviour,  when  he  said, 
**  The  works  that  I  do  in  my  Father’s  name,  they  bear  witness  of 
me  ;  and,  “if  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not.” 
IVIiat  re^on  have  we  to  believe  Jesus  speaking  in  the  Gospel,  and 
to  disbelieve  Mahomet  speaking  in  the  Koran?  Both  of  them  lay 
claim  to  a  Divine  commission ;  and  yet  we  receive  the  words  of  the 
one  as  a  revelation  from  God,  and  we  reject  the  words  of  the  other 
as  an  imposture  of  man.  The  reason  is  evident;  Jesus  established 
his  pretensions,  not  by  alleging  any  secret  communication  with  the 
Deity,  but  by  working  numerous  and  indubitable  miracles  in  the 
presence  of  thousands,  and  which  the  most  bitter  and  watchful  of 
his  enemies  could  not  disallow ;  but  Mahomet  wrought  no  miracles 
at  all :  nor  is  a  miracle  the  only  criterion  by  which  w^e  may  judge 
of  the  truth  of  a  revelation.  If  a  series  of  prophets  should,  through 
a  course  of  many  centuries,  predict  the  appearance  of  a  certain 
person,  w'hom  God  would  at  a  particular  time  send  into  the  w’orld 
for  a  particular  end,  and  at  length  a  person  should  appear,  in  whom 
all  the  predictions  w^ere  minutely  accomplished  ;  such  a  completion 
of  prophecy  would  be  a  criterion  of  the  truth  of  that  revelation 
which  that  pereon  should  deliver  to  mankind.  Or  if  a  person  should 
now  say  (as  many  false  prophets  have  said,  and  are  daily  saying), 
that  he  had  a  commission  to  declare  the  will  of  God ;  and,  as  a 
proof  of  his  veracity,  should  predict,  that,  after  his  death,  he  would 
rise  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day  ;  the  completion  of  such  a 
prophecy  would,  I  presume,  be  a  sufficient  criterion  of  the  truth  of 
what  this  man  might  have  said  concerning  the  will  of  God.  “  Now 
I  tell  you  (says  Jesus  to  his  disciples,  concerning  Judas,  who  was  to 
betray  him)  before  it  come,  that  when  it  is  come  to  pass  ye  may  be¬ 
lieve  that  I  am  he.”  In  various  parts  of  the  Gospels  our  Saviour, 
with  the  utmost  propriety,  claims  to  be  received  as  the  messenger 
of  God,  not  only  from  the  miracles  which  he  wrought,  but  from  the 
prophecies  which  were  fulfilled  in  his  person,  and  from  the  predic¬ 
tions  which  he  himself  delivered.  Hence,  instead  of  there  being  no 
criterion  by  wffiich  we  may  judge  of  the  truth  of  the  Christian  reve¬ 
lation,  there  are  clearly  three.  It  is  an  easy  matter  to  use  an  in¬ 
decorous  flippancy  of  language  in  speaking  of  the  Christian  religion 


180 


Walson’s  Apology 

and  with  a  supercilious  negligence  to  class  Christ  and  his  apostles 
amongst  the  impostors  who  have  figured  in  the  world  ;  but  it  is  not, 

I  think,  an  easy  matter  for  any  man  of  good  sense  and  sound  erudi¬ 
tion,  to  make  an  impartial  examination  into  any  one  of  the  three 
grounds  of  Christianity  which  I  have  here  mentioned,  and  to  reject  it. 

What  is  it,  you  ask,  the  Bible  teaches  ?  The  prophet  Micah  shall 
answer  you :  it  teaches  us  “  to  do  justly,  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk 
humbly  with  our  God — justice,  mercy,  and  piety,  instead  of  what 
you  contend  for — rapine,  cruelty,  and  murder.  What  is  it,  you  de¬ 
mand,  the  Testament  teaches  us  ?  You  answ'er  your  question — to 
believe  that  the  Almighty  committed  debauchery  with  a  woman. 
Absurd  and  impious  assertion !  No,  Sir,  no ;  this  profane  doctrine, 
this  miserable  stuff,  this  blasphemous  perversion  of  Scripture,  is 
your  doctrine,  not  that  of  the  New  Testament.  I  will  tell  you  the 
lesson  which  it  teaches  to  infidels  as  well  as  to  believers ;  it  is  a 
lesson  which  philosophy  never  taught,  which  wit  cannot  ridicule, 
nor  sophistry  disprove ;  the  lesson  is  this :  “  The  dead  shall  hear  the 
voice  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  they  that  hear  shall  hve  :  all  that  are 
in  their  graves  shall  come  forth ;  they  that  have  done  good  unto  the 
resurrection  of  life ;  and  they  that  have  done  evil  unto  the  resur¬ 
rection  of  damnation.” 

The  moral  precepts  of  the  Gospel  are  so  well  fitted  to  promote 
the  happiness  of  mankind  in  this  w^orld,  and  to  prepare  human 
nature  for  the  future  enjoyment  of  that  blessedness,  of  which,  in 
our  present  state,  we  can  form  no  conception,  that  I  had  no  expecta¬ 
tion  they  W'Ould  have  met  with  your  disapprobation.  You  say,  how¬ 
ever,  “  As  to  the  scraps  of  morality  that  are  irregularly  and  thinly 
scattered  in  those  books,  they  make  no  part  of  the  pretended  thing,  ^ 
revealed  religion.”  “  'VVTiatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to 
you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them.”  Is  this  a  scrap  of  morality  ?  Is  it  not 
rather  the  concentred  essence  of  all  ethics,  the  vigorous  root  from 
which  every  branch  of  moral  duty  tow'ards  each  other  may  be  de¬ 
rived  ?  Duties,  you  know,  are  distinguished  by  moralists  into  duties 
of  perfect  and  imperfect  obligation:  does  the  Bible  teach  you 
nothing,  when  it  instructs  you,  that  this  distinction  is  done  away  ? 
when  it  bids  you  “  put  on  bowels  of  mercies,  kindness,  humbleness 
of  mind,  meekness,  long  suffering,  forbearing  one  another  and  for¬ 
giving  one  another,  if  any  man  have  a  quarrel  against  any.”  These, 
and  precepts  such  as  these,  you  will  in  vain  look  for  in  the  codes  of 
Frederic  or  Justinian;  you  cannot  find  them  in  our  statute-books; 
they  were  not  taught,  nor  are  they  taught,  in  the  schools  of  heathen 
philosophy;  or,  if  some  one  or  two  of  them  should  chance  to  be 
glanced  at  by  a  Plato,  a  Seneca,  or  a  Cicero,  they  are  not  bound 
upon  the  consciences  of  mankind  by  any  sanction.  It  is  in  the 
Gospel,  and  in  the  Gospel  alone,  that  we  learn  their  importance ; 
acts  of  benevolence  and  brotherly  love  may  be  to  an  unbeliever 
voluntary  acts,  to  a  Christian  they  are  indispensable  duties.  Is  a 
new  commandment  no  part  of  revealed  religion?  “A  new  com¬ 
mandment  I  give  unto  you,  that  ye  love  one  another ;”  the  law  of 
Christian  benevolence  is  enjoined  tis  by  Christ  himself  in  the  most 


for  the  Bible.  181 

solemn  manner,  as  the  distinguishing  badge  of  our  being  his  dis¬ 
ciples. 

Two  precepts  you  particularize  as  inconsistent  with  the  dignity 
and  the  nature  of  man — that  of  not  resenting  injuries,  and  that  of 
loving  enemies.  Wlio  but  yourself  ever  interpreted  literally  the 
proverbial  phrase,  “  If  a  man  smite  thee  on  thj^  right  cheek,  turn  to 
rum  the  other  also?  Did  Jesus  himself  turn  the  other  cheek  when 
the  officer  of  the  high  priest  smote  him  ?  It  is  evident,  that  a  patient 
acquiescence  under  slight  personal  injuries  is  here  enjoined ;  and 
that  a  proneness  to  revenge,  which  instigates  men  to  savage  acts  of 
brutality,  for  every  trifling  offence,  is  forbidden.  As  to  loving 
enemies,  it  is  explained  in  another  place  to  mean,  the  doing  them  all 
the  good  m  our  power ;  “if  thine  enemy  hunger,  feed  him;  if  he 
thirst,  give  him  drink;”  and  what  think  you  is  more  likely  to  pre¬ 
serve  peace,  and  to  promote  kind  aflfections  amongst  men,  than  the 
returning  good  for  evil  ?  Christianity  does  not  order  us  to  love  in 
proportion  to  the  injury — “it  does  not  offer  a  premium  for  a  crime ;” 
it  orders  us  to  let  our  benevolence  extend  alike  to  all,  that  we  may 
emulate  the  benignity  of  God  himself  who  maketh  “  his  sun  to  rise 
on  the  evil  and  on  the  good.” 

In  the  law'  of  Moses,  retaliation  for  deliberate  injuries  had  been 
ordained— “  an  eye  for  an  eye,  a  tooth  for  a  tooth.”  Aristotle,  in  his 
treatise  of  morals,  says,  that  some  thought  retaliation  of  personal 
wrongs  an  equitable  proceeding.  Rhadamanthus  is  said  to  have 
pven  it  his  sanction  ;  the  decemviral  laws  allowed  it;  the  common 
law  ot  England  did  not  forbid  it;  and  it  is  said  to  be  still  the  law  of 
some  countries,  even  in  Christendom :  but  the  mild  spirit  of  Chris- 
tmnity  absolutely  prohibits,  not  only  the  retaliation  of  injuries,  but 
the  indulgence  of  every  resentful  propensity. 

been,  ^  you  affirm,  “  the  scheme  of  the  Christian  church 

) j  u •  Ignorance  of  the  Creator,  as  it  is  of  government  to 

hold  him  in  ignorance  of  his  rights.”  I  appeal  to  the  plain  sense  of 
any  honest  man  to  judge  whether  this  representation  be  true  in 
mther  particular.  When  he  attends  the  service  of  the  church,  does 
he  discover  any  design  in  the  minister  to  keep  him  in  ignorance  of 
his  Creator .  Are  not  the  public  prayers  in  which  he  joins,  the 
lessons  which  are  read  to  him,  the  sermons  which  are  preached  to 
mm,  all  calculated  to  impress  upon  his  mind  a  strong  conviction  of 
o  ^*^bness,  power,  and  wisdom  of  the  one  adorable 

God,  blessed  for  ever  ?  By  these  means,  which  the  Christian  church 
hath  provided  for  our  instruction,  I  will  venture  to  say,  that  the 
most  unlearned  congregation  of  Christians  in  Great  Britain  have 
more  just  and  sublime  conceptions  of  the  Creator,  a  more  perfect 
Imow ledge  of  their  duty  towards  him,  and  a  stronger  inducement  to 
the  prapice  of  virtue,  holiness,  and  temperance,  than  all  the  philoso¬ 
phers  ot  all  the  heathen  countries  in  the  world  ever  had,  or  now 
ave.  It,  indeed,  your  schpme  should  take  place,  and  men  should 
0  onger  tph^e  their  Bible,  then  would  they  soon  become  as 
Ignorant  of  the  Creator  as  all  the  world  was  when  God  called  Abra- 
ham  trom  his  kindred ;  and  as  all  the  world,  which  has  had  no  com- 

Q  12 


|g2  Watson^ s  Apology 

munication  with  either  Jews  or  Christians,  now  is.  Then  wo^d 
they  soon  bow  down  to  stocks  and  stones,  kp  their  hand  (as  they 
dK  the  time  of  Job,  and  as  the  poor  African  does  now)  to  ‘  the 
moon  walking  in  brightness,  and  deny  the  God  that  is  above  ^ 

™ld  they  Worship  Jupiter,  Bacchus,  and  Venus,  and  emulate,  m 
™transcendent  da^gitbusness  of  their  lives,  the  impure  morals  of 

^^Wlmt  design  has  government  to  keep  men  in  ignorance 
rights?  None  whatever.  All  wise  statesmen  ^ 

Se  men  know  of  their  rights,  the 
come.  Subjects,  not  from  necessity 

friends  of  every  government.  The  people  of  Great  Britain  are  wen 
acQuSnfed  3  their  natural  and  social  rights;  they  understand 
them  better  than  the  people  of  any  other  country  do ,  they  knovv 
STtherhave  a  right  to  be  free,  not  only  from  the  . capricious 
tvSnnv  of  any  one  man’s  will,  but  from  the  more  afflicting  des 
potism^of  republican  factions ;  and  it  is  this  fea^ 

attaches  them  to  the  constitution  of  ^  •  mv  fear  is 

that  the  people  should  know  too  much  of  their  rights ,  nw  lear  is 

Ihat  they  should  not  know  them  in 

full  extent.  The  government  does  not  desire  that  men  snouia  re 
main  in  hmorance  of  their  rights;  but  it  both  desires  and  requires, 
that  theylhould  not  disturb  the  public  peace 

that  they  should  make  themselves  acquainted,  not  merely  witn  me 
riSits  but  with  the  duties  also  of  men  in  civil  society.  I  am  tar 
frfm  ridiculing  (as  some  have  done)  the 

ago  understood,  that  the  poor  as  well  as  human 

af  well  as  the  poor,  have,  by  nature,  some  tacit  or  ex- 

government  can  justly  take  from  them,  without  their  tacit  or  ex 

press  consent;  and  some  also,  which  they  themselves 

to  surrender  to  any  government.  O^e  of  the  pnncigil  righte  of  m  ^ 

in  a  state  either  of  nature  or  of  society,  a  right  of 

fruits  of  his  industry,  ingenuity,  -SrrSo  muS  the  3 

ment  hold  anv  man  in  ignorance  of  this  right?  feo  much  me 
J^a^v  that  the  chief  care  of  government  is  to  declare,  ascertain, 
SCaud  defend  to  righ?;  nay  i.  gives  risht,  ™here  -mre 
Sves  none;  it  protects  the  goods  of  an  intestate ;  and  it  a  lows  a 

Sin,  at  his’dealh,  to  dispose  of  that  ^eere^v  as 

nature  would  cause  to  revert  into  the  common  stocl^  ,  ^ 

I  am  attached  to  the  liberties  of  mankind,  I  ‘".^’"Xat’dlilolratic  il- 
self  an  utter  enemy  to  that  spurious  philosophy,  that  XSetions 
sanity  which  would  equalize  all  property,  and  level  all  XSlSiv 
civilTocietv.  PersoLl  distinctions,  arising  from  superior  probity, 

Lrffl4  e3^^^  courage,  and  ^om  "J^Xhlc  tSel 

If  Sems,  are  the  very  blood  and  nerves  of  the  bod^ 
animate  the  whole,  and  invigorate  every  P^^*^ ^!T,‘'’^S;5Xres- 
bones  would  become  reeds,  and  its  marrow  water,  iXpr  Sav  be 
entlv  sink  into  a  fetid,  senseless  mass  of  corruption.  Power  may  be 
ulei  for  private  end^,  and  in  opposition  to  the  public  g?od ;  ^ 
may  be  improperly  conferred,  and  insolently  sustained :  riches  may 


for  the  Bible. 


183 


b«  wickedly  acquired,  and  viciously  applied :  but  as  this  is  neither 
necessarily  nor  generally  the  case,  I  cannot  agree  with  those,  who 
in  asserting  the  natural  equality  of  man,  spurn  the  instituted  dis¬ 
tinctions  attending  pwer,  rank,  and  riches.  But  I  mean  not  to  en¬ 
ter  into  any  discussion  on  this  subject,  farther  than  to  say,  that  your 
crimination  of  government  appears  to  me  to  be  wholly  unfounded  • 
and  to  express  my  hope,  that  no  one  individual  will  be  so  far  misled 
by  disquisitions  on  the  rights  of  man,  as  to  think  that  he  has  anv 

right  to  do  wrong,  or  to  forget  that  other  men  have  riarhts  as  well 
as  he. 

You  are  animated  with  proper  sentiments  of  piety,  when  you 
speak  of  the  structure  of  the  universe.  No  one,  indeed,  who  in¬ 
siders  it  with  attention,  c^  fail  of  having  his  mind  filled  with  the 
supreniest  veneration  for  its  author.  Who  can  contemplate,  without 
astonishment,  the  motion  of  a  comet,  running  far  beyond  the  orb  of 
Saturn,  endeavoring  to  escape  into  the  pathless  regions  of  unbounded 
space,  yet  feeling,  at  its  utmost  distance,  the  attractive  influence  of 
the  sun ;  hearing,  as  it  were,  the  voice  of  God  arresting  its  progress, 
and  compelling  it,  after  a  lapse  of  ages,  to  reiterate  its  ancient 
couree  ?  mo  can  comprehend  the  distance  of  the  stars  from  the 
earth,  and  from  each  other  ?  It  is  so  great,  that  it  mocks  our  concep¬ 
tion;  our  very  imagination  is  terrified,  confounded,  and  lost,  when 
we  are  told,  toat  a  ray  of  light,  which  moves  at  the  rate  of  above 
ten  millions  of  miles  in  a  minute,  will  not,  though  emitted  at  this  in- 
stant  from  the  brightest  star,  reach  the  earth  in  less  than  six  years. 
We  think  this  earth  a  great  globe ;  and  we  see  the  sad  wickedness 
which  individuals  are  often  guilty  of,  ip  scraping  together  a  little  of 
Its  mrt;  we  view,  with  still  greater  astonishment  and  horror,  the 
J^ghty  ruin  which  has,  in  all  ages,  been  brought  upon  human  kind, 
by  the  low  ambition  of  contending  powers,  to  acquire  a  temporary 
possession  of  a  little  portion  of  its  surface.  But  how  does  the  whole 
of  this  globe  sink,  as  it  were,  to  nothing,  when  we  consider,  that  a 
million  of  earths  will  scarcely  equal  the  bulk  of  the  sun ;  that  all 
the  stars  are  suns ;  and  that  millions  of  suns  constitute,  probably, 
tmt  a  minute  portion  of  that  material  world,  which  God  hath  dis- 
tnbumd  through  the  immensity  of  space !  Systems,  however,  of  in¬ 
sensible  matter,  though  arranged  in  exquisite  order,  prove  only  the 
Wisdom  and  the  power  of  the  great  Architect  of  nature.  As  per¬ 
cipient  beings,  w'e  look  for  something  more ;  for  his  goodness ;  and 
vv  e  cannot  open  our  eyes  without  seeing  it. 

Every  portion  of  the  earth,  sea,  and  air,  is  full  of  sensitive  beings, 
capable,  in  their  respective  orders,  of  enjoying  the  good  thing.s 
which  God  has  prepared  for  their  comfort.  All  the  orders  of  beings 
are  enabled  to  propagate  their  kind ;  and  thus  provision  is  made  for 
a  successive  continuation  of  happiness.  Individuals  yield  to  the 
jaw  of  dissolution  ipeparable  from  the  material  structure  of  their 
bodies :  but  no  gap  is  thereby  left  in  existence ;  their  place  is  occu- 
pied  by  other  individuals,  capable  of  participating  in  the  goodness 
01  the  Almighty.  Contemplations  such  as  these  fill  the  mind  with 
numiiity,  benevolence,  and  piety.  But  why  should  we  stop  here  ? 


194  WalsorCs  Apology 

why  not  contemplate  the  goodness  of  God  in  the  redemption,  as 
well  as  in  the  creation  of  the  world  ?  By  the  death  of  his  only  be¬ 
gotten  Son  Jesus  Christ,  he  hath  redeemed  the  whole  human  race 
from  the  eternal  death,  which  the  transgressipn  of  Adam  had  en¬ 
tailed  on  all  his  posterity.  You  believe  nothmg  about  the  trans¬ 
gression  of«Adam.  The  history  of  Eve  and  the  serpent  excites 
vour  contempt ;  yon  will  not  admit  that  it  is  either  a  real  history,  or 
an  allegorical  representation  of  death  entering  into  the  w^rld 
through  disobedience  to  the  command  of  God.  Be  it  so.  You  tind, 
however,  that  death  doth  reign  over  all  mankind,  by  whatever 
mean  it  was  introduced  ;  this  is  not  a  matter  of  belief,  but  oi  lament¬ 
able  knowledge.  The  New  Testament  tells  us,  that,  through  the 
merciful  dispensation  of  God,  Christ  hath  overcome  death,  and  re¬ 
stored  man  to  that  immortality  which  Adam  had  lost.  This  also 
you  refuse  to  belieye.  Why?  Because  you  cannot  account  for  the 
propriety  of  this  redemption.  Miserable  reason !  stupid  objection ! 
What  is  there  that  you  can  account  for?  Not  for  the  germination  of 
a  blade  of  grass,  not  for  the  fall  of  a  leaf  of  the  forest ;  and  will  you 
refuse  to  eat  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  because  God  has  not  given 
you  wisdom  equal  to  his  own  ?  Will  you  refuse  to  lay  hoM  on  iim 
mortality,  because  he  has  not  given  you,  because  he,  probably,  coihd 
not  give  to  such,  u  being  us  mun,  8.  full  munifestution  of  the  end  for 
which  he  designs  him,  nor  of  the  means  requisite  for  the  attainment 
of  that  end  ?  What  father  of  a  family  can  make  level  to  the  appre¬ 
hension  of  his  infant  children,  all  the  views  of  happiness  which  his 
paternal  goodness  is  preparing  for  them  ?  How  can  he  explain  to 
them  the  utility  of  reproof,  correction,  instruction,  example,  oi  all 
the  various  means  by  which  he  forms  their  minds  to  piety,  temper¬ 
ance,  and  probity?  W^e  are  children  in  the  hand  of  God ;  we  are  in 
the  very  infancy  of  our  existence,  just  separated  from  the  womb  of 
oternal  duration ;  it  may  not  be  possible  for  the  Father  of  the  uni¬ 
verse  to  explain  to  us  (infants  in  apprehension)  the  goodness  and  the 
wisdom  of  his  dealings  with  the  sons  of  men.  What  qualities  of 
mind  will  be  necessary  for  our  well-doing  through  all  eternity,  we 
know'  not ;  what  discipline  in  this  infancy  of  existence  may  be  ne¬ 
cessary  for  generating  these  qualities,  we  know  not ;  whether  God 
could  or  could  not  consistently  with  the  general  good,  have  forgiven 
the  transgression  of  Adam,  without  any  atonement,  we  know  not , 
whether  the  malignity  of  sin  be  not  so  great,  so  opposite  to  the  gene¬ 
ral  good,  that  it  cannot  be  forgiven  whilst  it  exists,  that  is,  -whilst 
the  mind  retains  a  propensity  to  it,  Ave  know  not ;  so  that  if  there 
should  be  much  greater  difficulty  in  comprehending  the  mode  of 
God’s  moral  government  of  mankind  than  there  really  is,  there 
would  be  no  reason  for  doubting  of  its  rectitude.  If  the  whole  hu¬ 
man  race  be  considered  as  but  one  small  member  of  a  large  com¬ 
munity  of  free  and  intelligent  beings  of  different  orders,  and  if  this 
whole  community  be  subject  to  discipline  and  laws  productive  of 
the  greatest  possible  good  to  the  whole  system,  then  may  we  still 
more  reasonably  suspect  onr  capacity  to  comprehend  the-wisdom 


for  the  Bible.  Ig5 

goodness  of  all  God’s  proceedings  in  the  moral  government  of 
the  universe. 

You  are  lavish  in  your  praise  of  deism ;  it  is  so  much  better  than 
atheism,  that  I  mean  not  to  say  any  thing  to  its  discredit :  it  is  not 
however,  without  its  difficulties.  What  think  you  of  an  uncaused 
cause  of  every  thing  ?  of  a  Being  who  has  no  relation  to  time,  not 
being  older  to-day  than  he  was  yesterday,  nor  younger  to-dav  than 
he  will  be  to-morrow?  who  has  no  relation  to  space,  not  being  a 
part  here  and  a  part  there,  or  a  whole  anywhere  ?  What  think  you 
ot  an  ^iscient  Being,  who  cannot  know  the  future  actions  of  a 
man  ?  Ur,  if  his  omniscience  enables  him  to  know  them,  what  think 
you  of  the  contingency  of  human  actions?  And  if  human  actions 
are  not  contingent,  what  think  you  of  the  morality  of  actions,  of  the 
distmction  between  vice  and  virtue,  crime  and  innocence,  sin  and 
duty  ?  What  think  you  of  the  infinite  goodness  of  a  Being,  who  ex- 
^ ted  through  eternity,  without  any  emanation  of  his  goodness  mani¬ 
fested  in  the  creation  of  sensitive  beings  ?  Or,  if  you  contend  that 
there  h^  been  an  eternal  creation,  what  think  you  of  an  effect  co¬ 
eval  with  Its  cause,  of  matter  not  posterior  to  its  Maker  ?  What 
think  you  of  the  existence  of  evil,  moral  and  natural,  in  the  work 
of  an  infinite  Being,  powerful,  wise,  and  good  ?  What  think  you  of 
the  gift  of  freedom  of  will,  when  the  abuse  of  freedom  becomes  the 
cause  of  general  misery  ?  I  could  propose  to  your  consideration  a 
great  many  other  questions  of  a  similar  tendency,  the  contemplation 

7  •  driven  not  a  few  from  deism  to  atheism,  just  as  the 
difficulties  in  revealed  religion  have  driven  yourself  and  some 
others,  from  Christianity  to  deism. 

For  my  own  part,  I  can  see  no  reason  why  either  revealed  or 
natural  religion  should  be  abandoned,  on  account  of  the  difficulties 
which  attend  either  of  them.  I  look  up  to  the  incomprehensible 
^  .  heaven  and  earth  wdth  unspeakable  admiration  and  self 

annihilation,  and  am  a  deist.  I  contemplate,  with  the  utmost  grati¬ 
tude  and  humility  of  mind,  his  unsearchable  wisdom  and  goodness 
in  the  redemption  of  the  world  from  eternal  death,  through  the  in- 
ten  ention  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  am  a  Christian.  As  a  deist, 
f  have  little  expectation;  as  a  Christian,  I  have  no  doubt  of  a  future 
myself,  and  may  be  in  an  error,  as  to  the  ground 
of  ffie  first  part  of  this  opinion.  You,  and  other  men,  may  conclude 
differently.  From  the  inert  nature  of  matter,  from  the  faculties  of 
the  human  mind,  from  the  apparent  imperfection  of  God’s  moral 
government  of  the  world,  from  many  modes  of  analogical  reasoning 
and  from  other  sources,  some  of  the  philosophers  of  antiquity  did 
collect,  and  modem  philosophers  may,  perhaps,  collect  a  strong 
probability  of  a  future  existence ;  and  not  only  of  a  future  existence 
but  (which  IS  quite  a  distinct  question)  of  a  future  state  of  retribu¬ 
tion,  proportioned  to  our  moral  conduct  in  this  world.  Far  be  it 
from  me  to  loosen  any  of  the  obligations  to  virtue;  but  I  must 
confess,  that  I  cannot,  from  the  same  sources  of  argumentation,  de- 
rive  any  positive  assurance  on  the  subject.  Think  then  with  what 
thankfulness  of  heart  I  receive  the  word  of  God,  which  tells  me, 

H  3 


186  Watson’s  Apology 

that  though  “  in  Adam  (by  the  condition  of  our  nature)  all  die yet 
“  in  Christ  (by  the  covenant  of  grace)  shall  all  be  made  alive.”  I 
lay  hold  on  “  eternal  life  as  the  gift  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ I 
consider  it  not  as  any  appendage  to  the  nature  I  derive  from  Adam, 
but  as  the  free  gift  of  the  Almighty,  through  his  Son,  whom  he  hath 
constituted  Lord  of  all,  the  Saviour,  the  Advocate,  and  the  Judge  of 
human  kind.  . 

“  Deism,”  you  affirm,  “  teaches  us,  without  the  possibility  of  being 
mistaken,  all  that  is  necessary  or  proper  to  be  known.”  There  are 
three  things,  which  all  reasonable  men  admit  are  necessary  and 
proper  to  be  known ;  the  being  of  God ;  the  providence  of  God  ;  a 
future  state  of  retribution.  Whether  these  three  truths  are  so  taught 
us  by  deism,  that  there  is  no  possibility  of  being  mistaken  concern¬ 
ing  any  of  them,  let  the  history  of  philosophy,  and  of  idolatry,  and 
superstition,  in  all  ages  and  countries,  determine.  A  volume  might 
be  filled  with  an  account  of  the  mistakes  into  which  the  greatest 
reasoners  have  fallen,  and  of  the  uncertainty  in  which  they  lived, 
with  respect  to  every  one  of  these  points.  I  will  advert,  briefly, 
only  to  the  last  of  them.  Notwithstanding  the  illustrious  labors  of 
Gassendi,  Cudworth,  Clarke,  Baxter,  and  of  above  two  hundred 
other  modern  writers  on  the  subject,  the  natural  mortality  or  immor¬ 
tality  of  the  human  soul  is  as  little  understood  by  us,  as  it  was  by 
the  philosophers  of  Greece  or  Rome.  The  opposite  opinions  of 
Plato  and  of  Epicurus,  on  this  subject,  have  their  several  supporters 
amongst  the  learned  of  the  present  age,  in  Great  Britain,  Germany, 
F ranee,  Italy,  in  every  enlightened  part  of  the  world ;  and  they, 
who  have  been  most  seriously  occupied  in  the  study  of  the  question 
concerning  a  future  state,  as  deducible  from  the  nature  of  the  hu¬ 
man  soul,  are  least  disposed  to  give,  from  reason,  a  positive  decision 
of  it  either  way.  The  importance  of  revelation  is  by  nothing  ren¬ 
dered  more  apparent,  than  by  the  discordant  sentiments  of  learned 
and  good  men  (for  I  speak  not  of  the  ignorant  and  immoral)  on  this 
point.  They  show  the  insufficiency  of  human  reason,  in  a  course 
of  above  two  thousand  years,  to  unfold  the  mysteries  of  human  na¬ 
ture,  and  to  furnish,  from  the  contemplation  of  it,  any  assurance  of 
the  quality  of  our  future  condition.  If  you  should  ever  become 
persuaded  of  this  insufficiency  (and  you  can  scarce  fail  of  becoming 
so,  if  you  examine  the  matter  deeply),  you  will,  if  you  act  rationally, 
be  disposed  to  investigate,  with  seriousness  and  impartiality,  the 
truth  of  Christianity.  You  will  say  of  the  Gospel,  as  the  Northum¬ 
brian  heathens  said  to  Paulinus,  by  whom  they  were  converted  to 
the  Christian  religion ;  “  The  more  we  reflect  on  the  nature  of  our 
soul,  the  less  we  know  of  it.  Whilst  it  animates  our  body,  we  may 
know  some  of  its  properties ;  but  when  once  separated,  W'e  know 
not  wLither  it  goes,  or  from  whence  it  came.  Since,  then,  the  Gos¬ 
pel  pretends  to  give  us  clearer  notions  of  these  matters,  we  ought  to 
hear  it,  and  laying  aside  all  passion  and  prejudice,  follow  that  wliich 
shall  appear  most  conformable  to  right  reason.” 

What  a  blessing  is  it  to  beings,  with  such  bruited  capacities  as 
ours  confessedly  are,  to  have  God  himself  for  our  instructor  in  every 


187 


for  the  Bible. 

thing  which  it  nauch  concerns  us  to  know !  We  are  principally  con¬ 
cerned  in  knowing ;  not  the  origin  of  arts,  or  the  recondite  depths 
of  science  ;  not  the  histories  of  mighty  empires  desolating  the  globe 
by  their  contentions ;  not  the  subtilties  of  logic,  the  mysteries  of 
metaphysics,  the  sublimities  of  poetry,  or  the  niceties  of  criticism. 
These,  and  subjects  such  as  these,  properly  occupy  the  learned  lei¬ 
sure  of  a  few ;  but  the  bulk  of  human  kind  have  ever  been,  and 
must  ever  remain,  ignorant  of  them  all;  they  must,  of  necessity, 
remain  in  the  same  state  with  that  which  a  German  emperor  volun- 
tarily  put  himself  into,  when  he  made  a  resolution,  bordering  on 
barbarism,  that  he  would  never  read  a  printed  book.  We  are  all, 
of  every  rank  and  condition,  equally  concerned  in  knowing — what 
will  beconie  of  us  after  death ;  and,  if  we  are  to  live  again,  we  are 
interested  in  knowing  whether  it  be  possible  for  us  to  do  any  thing 
whilst  we  live  here,  which  may  render  that  future  life  a  happy 
one.  Now,  “  that  thing  called  Christianity,”  as  you  scoffingly  speak ; 
that  last  best  gift  of  Almighty  God,  as  I  esteem  it,  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ,  has  given  us  the  most  clear  and  satisfactory  informa¬ 
tion  on  both  these  points.  It  tells  us,  what  deism  never  could  have 
told  us,  that  we  shall  certainly  be  raised  from  the  dead ;  that,  what¬ 
ever  be  the  nature  of  the  soul,  we  shall  certainly  live  for  ever ; 
and  that,  whilst  we  live  here,  it  is  possible  for  us  to  do  much  to¬ 
wards  the  rendering  that  everlasting  life  a  happy  one.  These  are 
tremendous  truths  to  bad  men;  they  cannot  be  received  and  re¬ 
flected  on  with  indifierence  by  the  best ;  and  they  suggest  to  all 
such  a  cogent  motive  to  virtuous  action,  as  deism  could  not  furnish 
even  to  Brutus  himself. 

Some  men  have  been  warped  to  infidelity  by  vieiousness  of  life; 
and  some  may  have  hypocritically  professed  Christianity  from  pros¬ 
pects  of  temporal  advantage :  but,  being  a  stranger  to  your  charac¬ 
ter,  I  neither  impute  the  former  to  you,  nor  can  admit  the  latter  as 
operating  on  myself  The  generality  of  unbelievers  are  such,  from 
want  of  information  on  the  subject  of  religion ;  having  been  engaged 
from  their  youth  in  struggling  for  worldly  distinction,  or  perplexed 
with  the  incessant  intricacies  of  business,  or  bewildered  in  the  pur¬ 
suits  of  pleasure,  they  have  neither  ability,  inclination,  nor  leisure, 
to  enter  into  critical  disquisitions  concerning  the  truth  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  Men  of  this  description  are  soon  startled  by  objections 
which  they  are  not  competent  to  answer ;  and  the  loose  morality 
of  the  age  (so  opposite  to  Christian  perfection),  co-operating  with 
their  want  of  Scriptural  knowledge,  they  presently  get  rid  of  their 
nursery  faith,  and  are  seldom  sedulous  in  the  acquisition  of  another, 
founded,  not  on  authority,  but  sober  investigation.  Presuming,  how¬ 
ever,  that  many  deists  are  as  sincere  in  their  belief  as  I  am  in  mine, 
and  knowing  that  some  are  more  able,  and  all  as  much  interested 
as  myself,  to  make  a  rational  inquiry  into  the  truth  of  revealed 
^igion,  I  feel  no  propensity  to  judge  unclianlably  of  any  of  them. 
They  do  not  think  as  I  do,  on  a  subject  surpassing  all  others  in  im¬ 
portance  ;  but  they  are  not,  on  that  account,  to  be  spoken  of  by  me 
with  asperity  of  language,  to  be  thought  of  by  me  os  persons  alien 


188  Watson^s  Apology  for  the  Bible. 

ated  from  the  mercies  of  God.  The  Gospel  has  been  offered  to  their 
acceptance ;  and,  from  whatever  cause  they  reject  it,  I  cannot  but 
esteem  their  situation  to  be  dangerous.  Undfer  the  influence  of  that 
persuasion  I  have  been  induced  to  write  this  book.  I  do  not  expect 
to  derive  from  it  either  fame  or  profit ;  these  are  not  improper  in¬ 
centives  to  honorable  activity  ;  but  there  is  a  time  of  life  when  they 
cease  to  direct  the  judgment  of  thinking  men.  What  I  have  written 
will  not,  I  fear,  make  any  impression  on  you ;  but  I  indulge  a  hope, 
that  it  may  not  be  without  its  effect  on  some  of  your  readers.  Infi¬ 
delity  is  a  rank  weed  ;  it  threatens  to  overspread  the  land  ;  its  root 
is  principally  fixed  amongst  the  great  ."nd  opulent,  but  you  are  en¬ 
deavoring  to  extend  the  malignity  of  its  poison  through  all  the 
classes  of  the  community.  There  is  a  class  of  men,  for  whom  I 
have  the  greatest  respect,  and  whom  I  am  anxious  to  preserve  from 
the  contamination  of  your  irreligion ;  the  merchants,  manufacturers, 
and  tradesmen  of  the  kingdom.  I  consider  the  influence  of  the  ex¬ 
ample  of  this  class  as  essential  to  the  welfare  of  the  community.  I 
know  that  they  are  in  general  given  to  reading,  and  desirous  of  in¬ 
formation  on  all  subjects.  If  this  little  book  should  chance  to  fall 
into  their  hands  after  they  have  read  yours,  and  they  should  think 
that  any  of  your  objections  to  the  authority  of  the  Bible  have  not 
been  fully  answered,  I  entreat  them  to  attribute  the  omission  to  the 
brevity  which  I  have  studied ;  to  my  desire  of  avoiding  learned 
disquisitions;  to  my  inadvertency;  to  my  inability;  to  any  thing 
rather  than  to  an  impossibility  of  completely  obviating  every  diffi¬ 
culty  you  have  brought  forward.  I  address  the  same  requesf  to 
such  of  the  youth  of  both  sexes  as  may  unhappily  have  imbibed, 
from  your  writings,  the  poison  of  infidelity ;  beseeching  them  to  be¬ 
lieve,  that  all  their  religious  doubts  may  be  removed,  though  it 
may  not  have  been  in  my  power  to  answer,  to  their  satisfaction,  all 
your  objections.  I  pray  God  that  the  rising  generation  of  this  land 
may  be  preserved  from  that  “  evil  heart  of  unbelief,”  which  has 
brought  ruin  on  a  neighboring  nation ;  that  neither  a  neglected  edu¬ 
cation,  nor  domestic  irreligion,  nor  evil  communication,  nor  the 
fashion  of  a  licentious  world,  may  ever  induce  them  to  forget,  that 
religion  alone  ought  to  be  their  rule  of  life. 

In  the  conclusion  of  my  Apology  for  Christianity,  I  informed  Mr. 
Gibbon  of  my  extreme  aversion  to  public  controversy.  I  am  now 
twenty  years  older  than  I  was  then,  and  I  perceive  that  this  my 
aversion  has  increased  with  my  age.  I  have,  through  life,  aban¬ 
doned  my  little  literary  productions  to  their  fate ;  such  of  them  as 
have  been  attacked,  have  never  received  any  defence  from  me ;  nor 
will  this  receive  any,  if  it  should  meet  with  your  public  notice,  or 
with  that  of  any  other  man. 

Sincerely  wishing  that  you  may  become  a  partaker  of  that  faith 
in  revealed  religion,  which  is  the  foundation  of  my  happiness  in  this 
world,  and  of  all  my  hopes  in  another,  I  bid  you  iarewell. 

R.  LANDAFF, 

CAnGAUTH  PARK, 

Jan.  20,  1796, 


4 


A  VIEW 

OF  THE 

INTERNAL  EVIDENCE 

OF 

THE  CHRISTIAN  RELIGION. 

BY 

SOAME  JENYNS,  ESQ. 


“Almost  thou  persuadest  me  to  be  a  Christian.” — Acts  xxvi.  28. 


#■  . 


-V.. 


N  ^ 


C. 

•t  W 


¥.  '■ . 


y-". 


4-V;  H  - 


i*  *' 


r.  -  ‘i^3*  ■-■ 


V 


31^ 


"a'a 


.  ti  • 


‘-i^- 

f.  ' 


ft-: 


<1  V  '• 
:'r>,‘  >•■ 


-  * 


»A. 

'IK- 


-  :V  -■'  "^  - 

■^..-A  ■  ^  '  I'  ■  • 

> 

^  '  w  ^  ^ 

•Se  -Ite  jt:*  , 

V’  .’’  .  i' 

#:  »;.  ■  -,:  . 


:  ’A- 


-e..  A'' 


\ 

r 


r 


«;i-'.^V^k..-v 


A 


VIEW  OF  THE  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE 

OF  THE 

CHRISTIAIM  RELIGION. 


Most  of  the  writers,  who  have  undertaken  to  prove  the  divine 
origin  of  the  Christian  religion,  have  had  recourse  to  arguments 
drawn  from  these  three  heads :  The  prophecies  still  extant  in  the 
Old  Testament,  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  New,  or  the  internal 
evidence  arising  from  that  excellence,  and  those  clear  marks  of  su¬ 
pernatural  interposition,  which  are  so  conspicuous  in  the  religion 
itself  The  two  former  have  been  sufficiently  explained  and  en¬ 
forced  by  the  ablest  pens  ;  but  the  last,  which  seems  to  carry  with 
it  the  greatest  degree  of  conviction,  has  never,  I  think,  been  con¬ 
sidered  with  that  attention  which  it  deserves. 

I  mean  not  here  to  depreciate  the  proofs  arising  from  either 
prophecies,  or  miracles ;  they  both  have  or  ought  to  have  their  proper 
weight;  prophecies  are  permanent  miracles,  whose  authority  is 
sufficiently  confirmed  by  their  completion,  and  are  therefore  solid 
proofs  of  the  supernatural  origin  of  a  religion,  whose  truth  they 
were  intended  to  testify ;  such  are  those  to  be  found  in  various  parts 
of  the  Scriptures  relative  to  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  the  destruc¬ 
tion  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  unexampled  state  in  which  the  Jews  have 
ever  since  continued,  all  so  circumstantiallydescriptive  of  the  events, 
that  they  seem  rather  histories  of  past,  than  predictions  of  future 
transactions ;  and  whoever  will  seriously  consider  the  immense 
distance  of  time  between  some  of  them  and  the  events  Avhich  they 
foretell,  the  uninterrupted  chain  by  which  they  are  connected  for 
many  thousand  years,  how  exactly  they  correspond  with  those 
events,  and  how  totally  unapplicabie  they  are  to  all  others  in  the 
history  of  mankind ;  I  say,  whoever  considers  these  circumstances, 
he  will  scarcely  be  persuaded  to  believe,  that  they  can  be  the  pro¬ 
ductions  of  preceding  artifice,  or  posterior  application,  or  can  enter¬ 
tain  the  least  doubt  of  their  being  derived  from  supernatural  in- 
spi  ration. 

The  miracles  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  to  haye  been  per¬ 
formed  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  were  certainly  convincing  proofi 
of  their  divine  commission  to  those  who  saw  them ;  and  as  they 
were  seen  by  such  numbers,  and  are  as  well  attested  as  other  his- 


192 


Jenyns's  Internal  Evidence 

torical  facts,  and,  above  all,  as  they  Avere  wrought  on  so  great  and 
so  wonderful  an  occasion,  they  must  still  be  admitted  as  evidence 
of  no  inconsiderable  force ;  but,  I  think,  they  must  now  depend  for 
much  of  their  credibility  on  the  truth  of  that  religion,  whose  credi¬ 
bility  they  were  first  intended  to  support.  To  prove,  therefore,  the 
truth  of  the  Christian  religion,  we  should  begin  by  showing  the  in¬ 
ternal  marks  of  divinity,  which  are  stamped  upon  it ;  because  on 
this  the  credibility  of  the  prophecies  and  miracles  in  a  great  mea¬ 
sure  depends :  for  if  we  have  once  reason  to  be  convinced,  that  this 
religion  is  derived  from  a  supernatural  origin;  prophecies  and 
miracles  wdll  become  so  far  from  being  incredible,  that  it  wall  be 
highly  probable,  that  a  supernatural  revelation  should  be  foretold 
and  enforced  by  supernatural  means. 

What  pure  Christianity  is,  divested  of  all  its  ornaments,  append¬ 
ages,  and  corruption,  I  pretend  not  to  say ;  but  what  it  is  not,  I  will 
venture  to  affirm,  which  is,  that  it  is  not  the  offspring  of  fraud  or 
fiction.  Such,  on  a  superficial  view,  I  know  it  must  appear  to  eveiy 
man  of  good  sense,  whose  sense  has  been  altogether  employed  on 
other  subjects ;  but  if  any  one  will  give  himself  the  trouble  to  ex¬ 
amine  it  with  accuracy  and  candor,  he  will  plainly  see,  that  how’ever 
fraud  and  fiction  may  have  grown  up  with  it,  yet  it  never  could 
have  been  grafted  on  the  same  stock,  nor  planted  by  the  same  hand. 

To  ascertain  the  true  system  and  genuine  doctrines  of  this  reli¬ 
gion,  after  the  undecided  controversies  of  above  seventeen  centu¬ 
ries,  and  to  remove  all  the  rubbish  which  artifice  and  ignorance 
have  been  heaping  upon  it  during  all  that  time,  would  indeed  be  an 
arduous  task,  which  I  shall  by  no  means  undertake ;  but  to  show, 
that  It  cannot  possibly  be  derived  from  human  wisdom,  or  human 
imposture,  is  a  work,  I  think,  attended  with  no  great  difficulty,  and 
requiring  no  extraordinary  abilities,  and  therefore  I  shall  attempt 
that,  and  that  alone,  by  stating,  and  then  explaining,  the  following 
plain  and  undeniable  propositions. 

First,  that  there  is  now  extant  a  book  entitled  the  New  Testament. 

Secondly,  that  from  this  book  may  be  extracted  a  system  of  reli¬ 
gion  entirely  new,  both  with  regard  to  the  object  and  the  doctrines, 
not  only  infinitely  superior  to,  but  unlike  every  thing,  which  had 
ever  before  entered  into  the  mind  of  man. 

Thirdly,  that  from  this  book  may  likewise  be  collected  a  system 
of  Ethics,  in  which  every  moral  precept  founded  on  reason  is  car¬ 
ried  to  a  higher  degree  of  purity  and  perfection,  than  in  any  other 
of  the  wisest  philosophers  of  preceding  ages ;  every  moral  precept 
founded  on  false  principles  is  totally  omitted,  and  many  new  pre¬ 
cepts  added,  peculiarly  corresponding  with  the  new  object  of  this 
religion. 

Lastly,  that  such  a  system  of  religion  and  morality  could  not  pos¬ 
sibly  have  been  the  work  of  any  man,  or  set  of  men ;  much  less  of 
those  obscure,  ignorant,  and  illiterate  persons,  who  actually  did  dis¬ 
cover,  and  publish  it  to  the  woidd ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  must  un¬ 
doubtedly  have  been  effected  by  the  interposition  of  Divine  power, 
that  is,  that  it  must  derive  its  ongin  from  God. 


of  Christianity. 


193 


PROPOSITION  I. 

Very  little  need  be  said  to  establish  my  first  proposition,  which  is 
singly  this: — That  there  is  now  extant  a  book  entitled  the  New 
Testament :  that  is,  there  is  a  collection  of  writings,  distinguished 
by  that  denomination,  containing  four  historical  accounts  of  the 
birth,  life,  actions,  discourses,  and  death  of  an  extraordinary  person 
named  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  born  in  the  reign  of  Augustus  Caesar, 
preached  a  new  religion  throughout  the  country  of  Judea,  and  was 
put  to  a  cruel  and  ignominous  death  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius.  Also 
one  other  historical  account  of  the  travels,  transactions,  and  orations 
of  some  mean  and  illiterate  men,  known  by  the  title  of  his  apostles, 
whom  he  commissioned  to  propagate  his  religion  after  his  death ; 
which  he  foretold  them  he  must  suffer  in  confirmation  of  its  truth. 
To  these  are  added  several  epistolary  writings,  addressed  by  these 
persons  to  their  fellow-laborers  in  this  work,  or  to  the  several 
churches  or  societies  of  Christians,  which  they  had  established  in 
the  several  cities  through  which  they  had  passed. 

It  would  not  be  difficult  to  prove,  that  these  books  were  written 
soon  after  those  extraordinary  events,  which  are  the  subjects  of 
them ;  as  we  find  them  quoted,  and  referred  to  by  an  uninterrupted 
succession  of  writers  from  those  to  the  present  times :  nor  would  it 
be  less  easy  to  show,  that  the  ti’uth  of  all  those  events,  miracles  only 
excepted,  can  no  more  be  reasonably  questioned,  than  the  truth  of 
any  other  facts  recorded  in  any  history  whatever ;  as  there  can  be 
no  more  reason  to  doubt,  that  there  existed  such  a  person  as  Jesus 
Christ,  speaking,  acting,  and  suffering  in  such  a  manner  as  is  there 
described,  than  that  there  were  such  men  as  Tiberius,  Herod,  or 
Pontius  Pilate,  his  contemporaries  ;  or  to  suspect,  that  Peter,  Paul, 
and  James  were  not  the  authors  of  those  epistles,  to  which  their 
narnes  are  affixed,  than  that  Cicero  and  Pliny  did  not  write  those 
which  are  ascribed  to  them.  It  might  also  be  made  appear,  that 
these  books,  having  been  wrote  by  various  persons  at  different 
times,  and  in  distant  places,  could  not  possibly  have  been  the  work 
of  a  single  impostor,  nor  of  a  fraudulent  combination,  being  all 
stamped  with  the  same  marks  of  a  uniform  originality  in  their  very 
frame  and  composition. 

But  all  these  circumstances  I  shall  pass  over  unobserved,  as  they 
do  not  fall  in  with  the  course  of  my  argument,  nor  are  necessary 
for  the  support  of  it.  Whether  these  books  were  wrote  by  the 
authors  whose  names  are  prefixed  to  them,  whether  they  have  been 
enlarged,  diminished,  or  any  way  corrupted  by  the  artifice  or  igno¬ 
rance  of  translators,  or  transcribers  j  whether  m  the  historical  parts 
the  w'riters  were  instructed  by  a  perpetual,  a  partial,  or  by  any  in¬ 
spiration  at  all ;  whether  in  the  religious  and  moral  parts,  they  re¬ 
ceived  their  doctrines  from  a  Divine  influence,  or  from  the  instruc¬ 
tions  and  conversation  of  their  master ;  whether  in  their  facts  or 
sentiments  there  is  always  the  most  exact  agreement,  or  whether  in 
both  they  sometimes  differ  from  each  other ;  whether  they  are  in 


194  Jenyns's  Internal  Evidence 

any  case  mistaken,  or  always  infallible,  or  ever  pretended  to  be  so, 
I  shall  not  here  dispute ;  let  the  deist  avail  himself  of  all  these 
doubts  and  difficulties,  and  decide  them  in  conformity  to  his  own 
opinions :  I  shall  not  contend,  because  they  affect  not  my  argument. 
All  that  I  assert  is  a  plain  fact,  which  cannot  be  denied,  that  such 
writings  do  now  exist 

PROPOSITION  11. 

My  second  proposition  is  not  quite  so  simple,  but,  I  think,  not  less 
undeniable  than  the  former,  and  is  this : — ^That  from  this  book  may 
be  extracted  a  system  of  religion  entirely  new,  both  with  regard  to 
the  object,  and  the  doctrines ;  not  only  infinitely  superior  to,  but 
totally  unlike,  every  thing  which  had  ever  before  entered  into  the 
mind  of  man.  I  say  extracted,  because  all  the  doctrines  of  this  reli¬ 
gion  having  been  delivered  at  various  times,  and  on  various  occa¬ 
sions,  and  here  only  historically  recorded,  no  uniform  or  regular 
system  of  theology  is  here  to  be  found ;  and  better,  perhaps,  it  had 
been,  if  less  labor  had  been  employed  by  the  learned,  to  bend  and 
twist  these  divine  materials  into  the  polished  forms  of  human  sys¬ 
tems,  to  which  they  never  will  submit,  and  for  which  they  were 
never  intended  by  their  great  Author.  Why  he  chose  not  to  leave 
any  such  behind  him  we  know  not,  but  it  might  possibly  be,  because 
he  knew,  that  the  imperfection  of  man  was  incapable  of  receiving 
such  a  system,  and  that  we  are  more  properly,  and  more  safely  con¬ 
ducted  by  the  distant  and  scattered  rays,  than  by  the  too  powerful 
sunshine  of  divine  illumination.  “  If  I  have  told  you  earthly  things,” 
says  he,  “and  ye  believe  not,  how  shall  ye  believe,  if  I  tell  you  of 
heavenly  things  ?”  (John  iii.  12)  that  is,  if  my  instructions,  concern¬ 
ing  your  behavior  in  the  present  as  relative  to  a  future  life,  are  so 
difficult  to  be  understood,  that  you  can  scarcely  believe  me,  how 
shall  you  believe,  if  I  endeavored  to  explain  to  you  the  nature  of 
celestial  beings,  the  designs  of  Providence,  and  the  mysteries  of  his 
dispensations ;  subjects  which  you  have  neither  ideas  to  compre¬ 
hend,  nor  language  to  express  ? 

First,  then,  the  object  of  this  religion  is  entirely  new,  and  is  this, 
to  prepare  us  by  a  state  of  probation  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
This  is  everywhere  professed  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  to  be  the 
chief  end  of  the  Christian’s  life ;  the  crown  for  which  he  is  to  con¬ 
tend,  the  goal  to  which  he  is  to  run,  the  harvest  which  is  to  pay  him 
for  all  his  labors.  Yet,  previous  to  their  preaching,  no  such  prize 
was  ever  hung  out  to  mankind,  nor  any  means  prescribed  for  the 
attainment  of  it. 

It  is  indeed  true,  that  some  of  the  philosophers,  of  antiquity  en¬ 
tertained  notions  of  a  future  state,  but  mixed  with  much  doubt  and 
uncertainty.  Their  legislators  also  endeavored  to  infuse  into  the 
minds  of  the  people  a  belief  of  rewards  and  punishments  after 
death ;  but  by  this  they  only  intended  to  give  a  sanction  to  their 
laws,  and  to  enforce  the  practice  of  virtue  for  the  benefit  of  man¬ 
kind  in  the  present  life.  This  alone  seems  to  have  been  their  end, 


of  Christianity.  195 

and  a  meritorious  end  it  was ;  but  Christianity  not  only  operates 
more  effectually  to  this  end,  but  has  a  nobler  design  in  view,  which 
IS  by  a  proper  education  here  to  render  us  fit  members  of  a  celestial 
society  hereafter.  In  all  former  religions  the  good  of  the  present 
lile  was  the  first  object ;  in  the  Christian  it  is  but  the  second ;  in 
those,  men  were  incited  to  promote  that  good  by  the  hopes  of  a 
future  reward  ;  in  this,  the  practice  of  virtue  is  enjoined  in  order  to 
qualify  them  for  that  reward.  There  is  great  difference,  I  appre¬ 
hend,  in  these  two  plans,  that  is  in  adhering  to  virtue  from  its  present 
utility  in  expectation  of  future  happiness,  and  living  in  such  a  man¬ 
ner  as  to  qualify  us  for  the  acceptance  and  enjoyment  of  that  hap¬ 
piness  ;  and  the  conduct  and  dispositions  of  those,  who  act  on  these 
different  principles,  must  be  no  less  different.  On  the  first,  the  con¬ 
stant  practice  of  justice,  temperance,  and  sobriety,  will  be  sufficient ; 
but  on  the  latter,  we  must  add  to  these  an  habitual  piety,  faith,  re¬ 
signation,  and  contempt  of  the  world.  The  first  may  make  us  very 
good  citizens,  but  will  never  produce  a  tolerable  Christian.  Hence 
It  is  that  Christianity  insists  more  strongly,  than  any  preceding  insti¬ 
tution,  religious  or  moral,  on  purity  of  heart,  and  a  benevolent  dis¬ 
position  ;  because  these  are  absolutely  necessary  to  its  great  end ; 
but  in  those,  whose  recommendations  of  virtue  regard  the  present 
life  only,  and  whose  promised  rewards  in  another  were  low  and 
sensual,  no  preparatory  qualifications  were  requisite  to  enable  men 
to  practise  the  one,  or  to  enjoy  the  other.  And,  therefore,  we  see 
this  object  is  peculiar  to  this  religion ;  and  with  it  was  entirely  new 

But  although  this  object,  and  the  principle  on  which  it  is  founded 
were  new,  and  perhaps  undiscoverable  by  reason,  yet,  when  dis¬ 
covered,  they  are  so  consonant  to  it,  that  we  cannot  but  readily  as¬ 
sent  to  them.  For  the  truth  of  this  principle,  that  the  present  life  is 
a  state  of  probation  and  education  to  prepare  us  for  another,  is  con¬ 
firmed  by  every  thing  which  we  see  around  us ;  it  is  the  only  key 
wliich  can  open  to  us  the  designs  of  Providence  in  the  economy  of  hu 
man  affairs,  the  only  clue  which  can  guide  us  through  that  pathless 
wilderness,  and  the  only  plan  on  which  this  world  could  possibly 
have  been  formed,  or  on  which  the  history  of  it  can  be  compre¬ 
hended  or  explained.  It  could  never  have  been  formed  on  a  plan 
of  happiness ;  because  it  is  everywhere  overspread  with  innumera¬ 
ble  miseries ;  nor  of  misery,  because  it  is  interspersed  with  many 
enjoyments.  It  could  not  have  been  constituted  for  a  scene  of  wis¬ 
dom  and  virtue,  because  the  history  of  mankind  is  little  more  than 
a  detail  of  their  follies  and  wickedness ;  nor  of  vice,  because  that  is 
no  plan  at  all,  being  destructive  of  all  existence,  and  consequently 
of  its  own.  But  on  this  system  all  that  we  here  meet  with  may  be 
easily  accounted  for  ,*  for  this  mixture  of  happiness  and  misery,  of 
virtue  and  vice,  necessarily  results  from  a  state  of  probation  and 
education ;  as  probation  implies  trials,  sufferings,  and  a  capacity  of 
offending,  and  education  a  propriety  of  chastisement  for  those 
offences. 

In  the  next  place  the  doctrines  of  this  religion  are  equally  new 
with  the  object;  and  contain  ideas  of  God,  and  of  man,  of  the  pres- 


196  JenyrCs  Internal  Evidence 

ent,  and  of  a  future  life,  and  of  the  relations  which  all  these  bear  to 
each  other,  totally  unheard  of,  arid  quite  dissimilar  from  any  which 
had  ever  been  thought  on,  previous  to  its  publication.  No  other 
ever  drew  so  just  a  portrait  of  ^^  worthlessness  of  this  world,  and 
all  its  pursuits,  nor  exhibited  sufeh  distinct,  lively,  and  exquisite  pic¬ 
tures  of  the  joys  of  another ;  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  last 
judgment,  and  the  triumphs  of  the  righteous  in  that  tremendous 
day,  “  when  this  corruptible  shall  put  on  incorruption,  and  this  mor¬ 
tal  shall  put  on  immortality.”  (1  Cor.  xv.  53.)  No  other  has  ever 
represented  the  Supreme  Being  in  the  character  of  three  persons 
united  in  one  God.*  No  other  has  attempted  to  reconcile  those 
seeming  contradictory  but  both  true  propositions,  the  contingency 
of  future  events,  and  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  or  the  free  will  of 
the  creature  with  the  over-ruling  grace  of  the  Creator.  No  other 
has  so  fully  declared  the  necessity  of  wickedness  and  punishment 
yet  so  effectually  insti-ucted  individuals  to  resist  the  one,  and  to  es- 
cape'flie  other :  no  other  has  ever  pretended  to  give  any  account  of 
the  depravity  of  man,  or  to  point  out  any  remedy  for  it :  no  other  has 
ventured  to  declare  the  unpardonable  nature  of  sin  without  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  a  mediatorial  interposition,  and  a  Ancarious  atonement  from 
the  sufferings  of  a  superior  Being.t  Whether  these  wonderful  doc¬ 
trines  are  worthy  of  our  belief  must  depend  on  the  opinion,  which 
we  entertain  of  the  authority  of  those,  who  published  them  to  the 
world  ;  but  certain  it  is,  that  they  are  all  so  far  removed  from  every 
tract  of  the  human  imagination,  that  it  seems  equally  impossible, 
that  they  should  ever  have  been  derived  from  the  knowledge,  or  the 
artifice  of  man. 

Some  indeed  there  are,  who,  by  perverting  the  established  signi¬ 
fication  of  words  (which  they  call  explaining),  have  ventured  to  ex¬ 
punge  all  these  doctrines  out  of  the  Scriptures,  for  no  other  reason 
than  that  they  are  not  able  to  comprehend  them ;  and  argue  thus : 
The  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God ;  in  his  word  no  propositions 
contradictory  to  reason  can  have  a  place;  these  propositions  are 
contradictory  to  reason,  and  therefore  they  are  not  there :  but  if 
these  bold  assertors  would  claim  any  regard,  they  should  reveree 
their  argument  and  say,  these  doctrines  make  a  part,  and  a  material 
part  of  file  Scriptures,  they  are  contradictory  to  reason ;  no  proposi- 


*  That  there  subsists  some  such  union  in  the  Divine  nature,  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  New  Testament  seems  to  express,  and  it  was  so  understood 
in  the  earliest  ages;  but  whether  this  union  does  or  does  not  imply 
equality,  or  whether  it  subsists  in  general,  or  only  in  particular  circum¬ 
stances,  we  are  not  informed,  and  therefore  on  these  questions  it  is  not 
only  unnecessary,  but  improper  for  us  to  decide. 

t  That  Christ  suffered  and  died,  as  an  atonement  for  the  sins  of  man¬ 
kind,  is  a  doctrine  so  constantly  and  so  strongly  enforced  through  every 
part  of  the  New  Testament,  that  whoever  will  seriously  peruse  those 
waitings,  and  deny  that  it  is  there,  may,  with  as  much  reason  and  truth, 
after  reading  the  works  of  Thucydides  and  Livy,  assert,  that  in  them  no 
mention  is  made  of  any  facts  relative  to  the  histories  of  Greece  and 
Rome. 


of  Christianity.  I97 

tions  contradictory  to  reason  can  be  a  part  of  the  word  of  God,  and 
therefore  neither  the  Scriptures,  nor  the  pretended  revelation  con* 
in  them,  can  be  derived  from  him;  this  would  be  an  arau- 
candid  deists,  and  demand  a  respectful 
atten  ion,  but  wdien  men  pretend  to  disprove  facts  by  reasoning, 
they  have  no  right  to  expect  an  answer.  ^ 

I  cannot  omit  observing,  that  the  personal  character  of 
t hP  this  religion  is  no  less  new,  and  extraordinary,  than 

the  iehj,ion  itself,  who  spake  as  never  man  spake”  (John  vii.  46) 

rjie  1 W  h  jived  :  in  proof  of  this,  I  do  not  mean  to  al- 

lej,e,  that  he  was  born  of  a  virgin,  that  he  fasted  forty  days,  that  he 
periorraed  a  v^ariety  of  miracles,  and  after  being  burled  tLee  days, 

1  f ''''r  i^feause  these  accounts  will  have  but 

reliVimf  win  of  unbelievers,  who,  if  they  believe  not  the 

religion,  will  give  no  credit  to  the  relation  of  these  facts ;  but  I  will 

rn  cannot  be  disputed  ;  for  instance,  he  is  the 

only  founder  of  a  religion  in  the  history  of  mankind,  which  is  totally 

^  government,  and  therefore 

totally  unconducive  to  any  worldly  purpose  whatever:  all  others, 
Mahomet,  Numa,  and  even  Moses  himself,  blended  their  religious 
nstitutions  with  their  civil,  and  by  them  obtained  dominion  over 
their  lespective  people ;  but  Christ  neither  aimed  at,  nor  would  ac¬ 
cept  of  any  such  power:  he  rejected  every  object,  w'hich  all  other 
len  pursue,  and  made  choice  of  all  those  which  others  fly  from 
and  are  afraid  of:  he  refused  power,  riches,  honors,  and  pleasure! 
and  courted  poverty.  Ignominy,  tortures,  and  death.  Many  have 
been  the  enthusiasts  and  impostors,  who  have  endeavored  to  impose 
on  the  world  pretended  revelations,  and  some  of  them  from  pride 
obstinacy,  or  principle,  have  gone  so  far  as  to  lay  down  their  lives 
rather  than  retract ;  but  I  defy  history  to  show  one,  who  ever  made 
Ins  own  sufferings  and  death  a  necessaiy  part  of  his  original  plan 
and  essential  to  his  mission;  this  Christ  actually  did;  he  foresaw, 
foretold,  declared  their  necessity,  and  voluntarily  endured  them.  If 
we  seriously  contemplate  the  divine  lessons,  the  perfect  precepts, 
me  beautiful  discourses,  and  the  consistent  conduct  of  this  wonder- 
1  111  person,  ym  cannot  possibly  imagine,  that  he  could  have  been 
either  an  idiot  or  a  madman ;  and  yet,  if  he  was  not  what  he  pre¬ 
tended  to  be,  he  can  be  considered  in  no  other  light ;  and  even  un¬ 
der  this  character  he  would  deserve  some  attention,  because  of  so 
sublime  and  rational  an  insanity  there  is  no  other  instance  in  the 
fustory  of  mankind. 

If  any  one  can  doubt  of  the  superior  excellence  of  this  religion 
above  all  which  preceded  it,  let  him  but  peruse  with  attention  those 
unparalleled  writings  in  which  it  is  transmitted  to  the  present  times, 
and  compare  them  with  the  most  celebrated  productions  of  the  pa- 
ga.n  world  ;  and  if  he  is  not  sensible  of  their  superior  beauty,  sim¬ 
plicity,  and  originality,  I  will  venture  to  pronounce,  that  he  is  as  de- 
ucient  m  taste  as  in  faith,  and  that  he  is  as  bad  a  critic  as  a  Cliris- 
tian;  for  in  what  school  of  ancient  philosophy  can  he  find  a  lesson 
Of  mormiy  so  perfect  as  Christ’s  sermon  on  the  mount  ?  From  which 

K  2  ]3 


■|gg  Jenyns^s  Internal  Evidence 

of  them  can  he  collect  an  address  to  the  Deity  so  concise,  and  yet 
comprehensive,  so  expressive  of  all  that  vve  vi^ant,  and  all  that  we 
could  d^eprecate,  as  that  short  prayer,  which  he  formed  for,  and  re- 
tr>  fh^cinles^  From  the  w'orks  of  w’hat  sage  of  anti- 

srLthVproters^p^ 

rSe  distress'ed.and  enforced  '’y 

those  words  of  Christ?  “Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  f  attier,  maarii 
the  kino-dom  prepared  for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  .  f 
Swlfln  huSgred.and  yl  gaye  “eat;  I  was  th.^ 
an  VP  me  dnnk;  I  was  a  stranger,  and  ye  took  me  in,  1  was  naKea 
Ld  ve  clothed  me ;  I  w^as  sick,  and  ye  visited  me ;  I  was  in  prison, 
^nd  fe  came  unto  me.  Then  shall  the  righteous  >•  y* 

ina  Ford  when  saw  we  thee  an  hungred,  and  fed  thee,  or  tmrsty 
aiS  eave’thee  drink?  when  saw  we  thee  a  stranger,  and  took  thee 
in  nr  naked  and  clothed  thee?  or  when  saw  w^e  thee  sick  and  in 
^;i?td  cui  uL  thee?.  Then  shall  I  answer  -cl  say  umo 

them.  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  imsmuch  7— 
least  of  theL  my  brethren,  ye  have  done  it  unto  ^  „ 

34')  Where  is  there  so  just,  and  so  elegant  a  reproof  of  aag  . 
and  aS  ii  woridly  pursuits,  closed  with  so  forcible  an  exhorta¬ 
tion  to  coi^^dence  in  tL  goodness  »* 

“Behold  the  fowls  of  the  air;  for  they  sow  ^ 

rean  nor  gather  into  barns,  yet  your  heavenly  Father  feedetli  them. 
Are^’ye  riot  much  better  than  they  ?  consider  the  lilies  of  the  field, 
how  they  grow;  they  toil  not,  neither  do  they  spm;  and  yet  I  ay 
TZ  yot^  that  even  komon  in  all  his  glory  was  not  ajayed  like 
one  of  these:  wherefore,  if  God  so  clothe  the  grass  of  the  tield, 

which  to-day  is,  and  to-morrow  is  cast  Bv 

much  more  clothe  you?  O  ye  of  little  faith!  (Matt.  vi.  2b.  2H.)  .by 
which  of  their  most  celebrated  poets  are  the  joys 
righteous  in  a  future  state  so  -bhmely  describ^,  as  by  this^^s^^^^ 
declaration,  that  they  are  superior  to  aUt^escrip  ion  ?  Ej^e  hath  not 
seen,  nor  ear  heard,  neither  have  entered  —o  the  heart  of  man,  the 
things  which  God  hath  prepared  for  them  that  love  him.  (1  Cor. 
ii  9?  Where,  amidst  the  dark  clouds  of  pagan  philosophy,  can  he 
show  us  such  a  clear  prospect  of  a  future  state,  the  -mortality  of 
the  soul  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the  general  judgment,  as 
in  St  Paul’s  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians?  Or  from  whence  can 
he  produce  such  cogent  exhortations  to  the  practice  of  e\er>;  virtue, 
sucraEtTncitem^ents  to  .piety  and  devotion,  .and  such  ^ 
to  attain  them,  as  those  which  are  to  be  met  with  throughoiit  every 
page  of  these  inimitable  writings  ?  To  quote  all  the 
Relative  to  these  subjects,  would  be  almost  to  transcribe  the  who  e  , 
it  is  sufficient  to  observe,  that  they  are  everywhere  stamped  w  th 
such  apparent  marks  of  supernatural  assistance,  as  render  them  in 
disputaWv  superior  to,  and  totally  unlike  all  human  composition 
whateve/;  and  this  superiority  and  dissimilarity  is  still  more  strong  y 
marked  by  one  remarkable  circumstance  peculiar  to  themselves, 
which  is,  that  whilst  the  moral  parts,  being  of  the  most  S— eral  use, 
are  intelligible  to  the  meanest  capacities,  the  learned  and  inqu  . 


of  Cliristianihj.  jqq 

live,  throughout  all  ages,  perpetually  find  in  them  inexhau«5tihlf> 

attributes,  and  dispensations^of 

appearance  of  Christianitv  there  ex- 

u  tr  j  P^ner  nations  were  immersed  in  the  grossest  idolatni 
^A  hich  had  little  or  no  connexion  with  morality,  exfeprto  cSrTpTft 

xvnr«lf-  “^^^pous  examples  of  their  own  imaginary  deities :  they  all 
roiirtp!f?f  pmltiphcity  of  gods  and  demops,  whose  favor  they 
miii  ?hpX  ''nd  ridiculous  ceremonies,  and  whose 

InTe  mkst  alTs'of  abominable  cruelties. 

at  aP  f  P^Josophy,  in  religious  knowledge  they  had  made  none 
presumption,  that  the  noblest  efforts  of  the  mind  of 

Sed  oTtW  ^  "’O  <a°k-  lor  few 

ral  aljsurdities,  and  dmT to  attempt*  ™tofner'flfSr*Hlto  fT**' 

disSix^^!  K1  ’  being  above  his  own  and  all  human 

i-pr«op!^  ’  c  P^nbably  acquired  from  the  books  of  MoseS  or  the  con¬ 
versation  of  some  Jewish  rabbles,  which  he  might  have  met  wbh 

Aritotfe  Tnd*  from  ‘'Sto®  r  “‘’  “7““’  ‘  hi'" 

^lifciuue,  ana  irom  both  Cicero  and  some  few  others  drpxv  nip«t 

tlifine  researches 

R,  t  •  human  genius  alone  could  penetrate, 

eral  centnrips*^  bnght  constellations,  which  appeared  singly  in  sev- 
deficient  in  frnp^tP  these  with  all  this  knowledge  were  very 

they  traced  thp  ^'^'hle  works  of  the  creation 

the^relation  ^hiH.  principal  attributes  of  the  Creator;  but 

mid^S  -^f  attributes  bear  to  man  they  little 

conPt  tu  e  P  y  and  dexotion  they  had  scarce  any  sense,  nor 

feet  on  ^'«rthy  of  the  purity  and  per- 

ITnf  It.  f  h>ivme  nature  :  they  occasionally  flung  out  many  ele- 
fhpv  fn  ^he  native  beauty  and  excellence  of  virtuel  but 

a  SlP  Jo'*'”’  “r* «he  “""toands"  of  God.  nor  connected  it  wift 

“ts  obfeef  Thl.P?*  ?“  **’  "<■  ‘““'"r"  as  its  reward,  or 

nntt  tUoo‘"  sometimes  talked  of  virtue  cariying  men  to  heaven 
and  placing  them  arnongst  the  gods;  but  by  this  virtue  they  iS 

“f  "i*  Aem  Vir  en 

vvas  open  only  to  legislators  and  conquerors,  the  civilizers  or  de- 

most  TOlish^d^^P^'  was,  then,  the  summit  of  religion  in  the 

few  nh^ nations  in  the  world,  and  even  this  was  confined  to  a 
mmoHprtfhhem,  prodigies  of  genius  and  literature,  xvho  were  little 
thei?  own  understood  by  the  generality  of  mankind  in 

mon  cion  ft  ’  whilst  all  the  rest  were  involved  in  one  com- 

Tf  •  ^g^^orance  and  superstition. 

At  this  time  Christianity  broke  forth  from  the  east  like  a  rising 


Jenyns's  Internal  Evidence 


200 

isiipiis 

^  TYiQTrVhink  of  the  authority  of  these  books,  the  rela- 
donht-,  because  there  are  the  books,  and  m  them  is  this  religion. 


PROPOSITION  III. 

My  third  proposition  is  this  ;  that  from  this  book,  the  New 

all  those,  tvhieh 

enforce  the  praet.ce  of^^^^^^^^ 

God  benevolence  to  men,  ju&ice,  charity,  temperance, 
SSiSy'wHh  ^1  thos. 


of  Christianity.  201 

cause  they  have  really  no  intrinsic  merit  in  them,  and  are  totally 
incompatible  with  the  genius  and  spirit  of  this  institution. 

Valor,  for  instance,  or  active  courage,  is  for  the  most  part  consti¬ 
tutional,  and  therefore  can  have  no  more  claim  to  moral  merit,  than 
wit,  beauty,  health,  strength,  or  any  other  endowment  of  the  mind 
or  body ;  and  so  far  is  it  ifom  producing  any  salutary  effects  by  in¬ 
troducing  peace,  order,  or  happiness  into  society,  that  it  is  the  usual 
perpetrator  of  all  the  violences,  which  from  retaliated  injuries  dis¬ 
tract  the  world  with  bloodshed  and  devastation.  It  is  the  engine 
by  which  the  strong  are  enabled  to  plunder  the  weak,  the  proud  to 
trample  upon  the  humble,  and  the  guilty  to  oppress  the  innocent;  it 
IS  the  chief  instrument  which  ambition  employs  in  her  unjust  pur¬ 
suits  of  wealth  and  power,  and  is  therefore  so  much  extolled  by  her 
votaries :  it  was  indeed  congenial  with  the  religion  of  pagans,  whose 
gods  v\ere,  fiir  the  most  part,  made  out  of  deceased  heroes,  exalted 
to  heaven  as  a  reward  for  the  mischiefs  which  they  had  perpetrated 
upori  earth,  and  therefore  with  them  this  was  the  first  of  virtues, 
and  had  even  engrossed  that  denomination  to  itself;  but  whatever 
merit  it  may  have  assumed  among  pagans,  with  Christians  it  can 
pretend  to  none,  and  few  or  none  are  the  occasions  in  which  they 
are  permitted  to  exert  it ;  they  are  so  far  from  being  allowed  to  in¬ 
flict  evil,  that  they  are  forbid  even  to  resist  it ;  they  are  so  far  from 
being  encouraged  to  revenge  injuries,  that  one  of  their  first  duties 
IS  to  forgive  them;  so  far  from  being  incited  to  destroy  their  ene¬ 
mies,  that  they  are  commanded  to  love  them,  and  to  serve  them  to 
the  utmost  of  their  power.  If  Christian  nations  therefore  were  na¬ 
tions  of  Christians,  all  war  wuuld  be  impossible  and  unknown 
^longst  them,  and  valor  could  be  neither  of  use  or  estimation,  and 
therefore  could  never  have  a  place  in  the  catalogue  of  Christian 
\irtues,  being  irreconcilable  with  all  its  precepts.  I  object  not  to 
the  praise  and  honors  bestowed  on  the  valiant :  they  are  the  least 
ti^ute  which  can  be  paid  them  by  those  wdio  enjoy  safety  and 
affluence  by  the  intervention  of  their  dangers  and  sufferings  ;  I  as¬ 
sert  only,  that  active  courage  can  never  be  a  Christian  virtue,  be¬ 
cause  a  Christian  can  have  nothing  to  do  wdth  it.  Passive  courage 
^  indeed  frequently  and  properly  inculcated  by  this  meek  and  suf¬ 
fering  religion,  under  the  titles  of  patience  and  resignation  :  a  real 
and  substantial  virtue  this,  and  a  direct  contrast  to  the  former ;  for 
passive  courage  arises  from  the  noblest  dispositions  of  the  human 
nund,  from  a  contempt  of  misfortunes,  pain,  and  death,  and  a  confi¬ 
dence  in  the  protection  of  the  Almighty;  active  from  the  meanest; 
from  passion,  vanity,  and  selfdependence ;  passive  courage  is  de- 
nved  from  a  zeal  for  truth,  and  a  perseverance  in  duty;  active  is 
the  offspring  of  pride  a,nd  revenge,  and  the  parent  of  cruelty  and 
injustice :  in  short,  passive  courage  is  the  resolution  of  a  philosopher, 
active  the  ferocity  of  a  savage.  Nor  is  this  more  incompatible  wdth 
the  precepts,  than  with  the  object  of  this  religion,  w  hich  is  the  attain¬ 
ment  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  for  valor  is  not  that  sortof  violence, 
by  which  that  kingdom  is  to  be  taken;  nor  are  the  turbulent  spirits 


202  Jenyns’s  Internal  Evidence 

of  heroes  and  conquerors  admissible  into  those  regions  of  peace, 

subordination,  and  tranquillity.  u  cort  in  nn 

Patriotism  also,  that  celebrated  virtue,  so  much 
cient,  and  so  much  professed  in  modern  times,  that  ’^irtue  ^^hlch  .o 
long  preserved  the  liberties  of  Greece,  and  exalt  d  Rome  to 
empire  of  the  world  :  this  celebrated  virtue,  T  say,  must  also  be  ex¬ 
cluded;  because  it  not  only  falls  short  of,  but 
the  extensive  benevolence  of  this  religion.  A 
country,  he  is  a  citizen  of  the  world;  and  his  neighbors  and  coun¬ 
trymen  are  the  inhabitants  of  the  remotest  regions,  whenever  then 
distresses  demand  his  friendly  assistance:  Christianity  commands 
us  to  love  all  mankind,  patriotism  to  oppress  all  other  countnes  to 
advance  the  imaginary  prosperity  of  our  own :  Christianity  enjoins 
“s  to  imitate  ™e  Inivlsal  benevolence  of  our  Creator,  who  poum 
forth  his  blessings  on  every  nation  upon  earth ;  patriotism  to  copy 
the  mean  partiality  of  an  English  parish  officer,  who  thinks  injustice 
and  cruelty  meritorious,  whenever  they  promote  the  interests  of  hr 
own  inconsiderable  village.  This  has  ever  been  a  ®  ^  _ 

with  mankind,  because  it  conceals  self-interest  under  the  mask  of 
public  spirit,  not  only  from  others,  but  even  from  themselves,  and 
mves  a  license  to  inflict  wrongs  and  injuries,  not  only  with  impu¬ 
nity,  but  with  applause;  but  it  is  so  diametrically  opposite  to  the 
great  characteristic  of  this  institution,  that  it  never  could  have  been 
admitted  into  the  list  of  Christian  virtues. 

Friendship,  likewise,  although  more  congenial  to  the.  principles 
of  Christianity,  arising  from  more  tender  and  amiable  dispositions, 
could  never  gain  admittance  amongst  her  benevolent  precepts,  for 
the  same  reason ;  because  it  is  too  narro\y  and  confined,  and  appro¬ 
priates  that  benevolence  to  a  single  object,  which  is  here  com¬ 
manded  to  be  extended  over  all:  where  friendships  arise  fromsirm- 
larity  of  sentiments,  and  disinterested  affections,  they  are  advanta¬ 
geous,  agreeable,  and  innocent,  but  have  little  pretensions  to  merit; 
for  it  is  justly  observed,  “  If  ye  love  them,  which  love  you,  what 
thank  have  ye?  for  sinners  also  love  those  that  love  them.  (Luke 
vi.  32.)  But  if  they  are  formed  from  alliances  in  parties,  faction^ 
and  interests,  or  from  a  participation  of  vmes,  the  usual  parents  of 
what  are  called  friendships  among,  mankind,  they  are  ffien  both 
mischievous  and  criminal,  and  consequently  forbidden ,  but  in  their 
utmost  purity  deserve  no  recommendation  from  this  religion. 

To  the  judicious  omission  of  these  false  virtues  we  may  add  that 
remarkable  silence,  which  the  Christian  Legislator  everywhere  pre¬ 
serves  on  subjects  esteemed  by  all  others  of  the  highest  imporianc^e, 

civil  government,  national  policy,  and  the  ’ 

of  the^se  he  has  not  taken  the  least  notice,  probably  foi  this  plain 
rLson,  because  it  would  have  been  imiiospble  to  have  formed  any 
explicit  regulations  concerning  them,  which  must  not  have  in¬ 
consistent  with  the  purity  of  his  religion,  or  with  the  practical  ob¬ 
servance  of  such  imperfect  creatures  as  men  ruling  over,  and  con¬ 
tending  with  each  other.  For  instance,  had  he  absolutely  forbad  all 
resistance  to  the  reigning  powers,  he  had  constituted  a  plan  of  des- 


203 


of  Christianity. 

polism,  and  made  men  slaves;  had  he  allowed  it,  he  must  have 
authorized  disobedience,  and  made  them  rebels;  had  he,  in  direct 
terms,  prohibited  all  war,  he  must  have  left  his  followers  for  ever 
an  easy  prey  to  every  inlldel  invader ;  had  he  permitted  it,  he  must 
ha^'e  licensed  ail  that  rapine  and  murder  with  which  it  is  unavoida¬ 
bly  attended. 

Let  us  now  examine  what  are  those  new  precepts  in  this  religion 
peculiarly  corresponding  with  the  new  object  of  it,  that  is,  prepar¬ 
ing  us  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Of  these  the  chief  are  poorness  of 
spirit,  forgiveness  of  injuries,  and  charity  to  all  men ;  to  these  w^e 
may  add  repentance,  faith,  self-abasement,  and  a  detachment  from 
the  world,  all  moral  duties  peculiar  to  this  religion,  and  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  attainment  of  its  end. 

“Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit;  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  hea¬ 
ven.”  (Matt.  V.  3.)  By  which  poorness  of  spirit  is  to  be  understood 
a  disposition  of  mind,  meek,  humble,  submissive  to  power,  void  of 
ambition,  patient  of  injuries,  and  free  from  all  resentment.  This 
was  so  new,  and  so  opposite  to  the  ideas  of  all  Pagan  moralists,  that 
they  thought  this  temper  of  mind  a  criminal  and  contemptible  mean¬ 
ness,  which  must  induce  men  to  sacrifice  the  glory  of  their  country, 
and  their  own  honor,  to  a  shameful  pusillanimity ;  and  such  it  ap¬ 
pears  to  almost  all  who  are  called  Christians  even  at  this  day,  who 
not  only  reject  it  in  practice,  but  disavow  it  in  principle,  notwith¬ 
standing  this  explicit  declaration  of  their  Master.  We  see  them  re¬ 
venging  the  smallest  affronts  by  premeditated  murder,  as  individ¬ 
uals,  on  principles  of  honor ;  and,  in  their  national  capacities,  de¬ 
stroying  each  other  with  fire  and  sword,  for  the  low  considerations 
of  commercial  interests,  the  balance  of  rival  powers,  or  the  ambition 
of  princes.  We  see  them  with  their  last  breath  animating  each 
other  to  a  savage  revenge,  and,  in  the  agonies  of  death,  plunging 
with  feeble  arms  their  daggers  into  the  hearts  of  their  opponents 
and,  what  is  still  w'orse, 'we  hear  all  these  barbarisms  celebrated 
by  historians,  flattered  by  poets,  applauded  in  theatres,  approved  in 
senates,  and  even  sanctified  in  pulpits.  But  universal  practice  can¬ 
not  alter  the  nature  of  things,  nor  universal  error  change  the  nature 
of  truth.  Pride  was  not  made  for  men,  but  humility,  meekness,  and 
resignation,  that  is,  poorness  of  spirit,  was  made  for  man,  and. 
properly  belongs  to  his  dependent  and  precarious  situation ;  and  is 
the  only  disposition  of  mind,  which  can  enable  him  to  enjoy  ease 
and  quiet  here,  and  happiness  hereafter.  Yet  was  this  important 
precept  entirely  unknown  until  it  was  promulgated  by  him,  who 
said,  “Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  tbrbid  them  not  ; 
for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven:  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whoso¬ 
ever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall 
not  enter  therein.”  (Mark  x.  14.) 

Another  precept,  equally  new  and  no  less  excellent,  is  forgive¬ 
ness  of  i7ijuries:  “Ye  have  heard,”  says  Christ  to  his  disciples, 
“  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor,  and  hate  thine  enemy ;  but  I  say 
unto  you,  love  your  enemies ;  bless  them  that  curse  you,  do  good  to 
tb.era  that  hate  you,  and  pray  for  them  which  despitefuily  use  you. 


204  Jenyns’s  Internal  Evidence 

and  persecute  you.”  (Matt.  v.  43.)  This  was  a  lesson  so  new,  and  so 
utterly  unknown,  till  taught  by  his  doctrines,  and  enforced  by  his 
example,  that  the  wisest  moralists  of  the  wisest  nations  and  ages  re¬ 
presented  the  desire  of  revenge  as  a  mark  of  a  noble  mind,  and  the 
accomplishment  of  it  as  one  of  the  chief  felicities  attendant  on  a 
fortunate  man.  But  how  much  more  magnanimous,  how  much  more 
beneficial  to  mankind,  is  forgiveness !  it  is  more  magnanimous,  be¬ 
cause  every  generous  and  exalted  disposition  of  the  human  mind  is 
requisite  to  the  practice  of  it ;  for  these  alone  can  enable  us  to  bear 
the  wrongs  and  insults  of  wickedness  and  folly  with  patience,  and 
to  look  down  on  the  perpetrators  of  them  with  pity,  rather  than  in¬ 
dignation  ;  these  alone  can  teach  us,  that  such  are  but  a  part  of 
those  sufferings  allotted  to  us  in  this  state  of  probation,  and  to  know, 
that  to  overcome  evil  with  good  is  the  most  glorious  of  all  victories : 
it  is  the  most  beneficial,  because  this  amiable  conduct  alone  can  put 
an  end  to  an  eternal  succession  of  injuries  and  retaliations ;  for 
every  retaliation  becomes  a  new  injury,  and  requires  another  act  of 
revenge  for  satisfaction.  But  would  we  observe  this  salutary  pre¬ 
cept,  to  love  our  enemies,  and  to  do  good  to  those  who  despitefully 
use  us,  this  obstinate  benevolence  would  at  last  conquer  the  most 
inveterate  hearts,  and  we  should  have  no  enemies  to  forgive.  How 
much  more  exalted  a  character  therefore  is  a  Christian  martyr,  suf¬ 
fering  with  resignation,  and  praying  for  the  guilty,  than  that  of  a 
Pagan  hero,  breathing  revenge,  and  destroying  the  innocent  ?  yet 
noble  and  useful  as  this  virtue  is,  before  the  appearance  of  this  re¬ 
ligion  it  was  not  only  unpractised,  but  decried  in  principle,  as  mean 
and  ignominous,  though  so  obvious  a  remedy  for  most  of  the  miseries 
of  this  life,  and  so  necessary  a  qualification  for  the  happiness  of 
another. 

A  third  precept,  first  noticed  and  first  enjoined  by  this  institution, 
is  charity  to'all  men.  What  this  is,  we  may  best  learn  from  this  ad¬ 
mirable  description,  painted  m  the  followung  words ;  “  Charity  suf- 
fereth  long,  and  is  kind;  charity  envieth  not;  charity  vaunteth  not 
itself;  is  not  puffed  up ;  doth  not  behave  itself  unseemly ;  seeketh 
not  her  own;  is  not  easily  provoked;  thinketli  no  evil;  rejoiceth 
not  in  iniquity,  but  rejoiceth  in  truth ;  feareth  all  things  ;  beliey eth 
all  things;  hopeth  all  things;  endureth  all  things.”  (1  Cor.  xiii.  4.) 
Here  we  have  an  accurate  delineation  of  this  bright  constellation 
of  all  virtues,  which  consists  not,  as  many  imagine,  in  the  building 
of  moiaasteries,  endowment  of  hospitals,  or  the  distribution  of  alms, 
but  in  such  an  amiable  disposition  of  mind  as  exercises  itself  every 
hour  in  acts  of  kindness,  patience,  complacency,  and  benevolence 
to  all  around  us,  and  which  alone  is  able  to  promote  happiness  in 
the  present  life,  or  render  us  capable  of  receiving  it  in  another ;  and 
yet  this  is  totally  new,  and  so  it  is  declared  to  be  by  the  author  of 
it ;  “  A  ne  w  commandment  I  give  unto  you,  that  ye  love  one  another ; 
as  I  have  loved  you,  that  ye  also  love  one  another ;  by  this  shall  all 
men  know,  that  ye  are  my  disciples,  if  ye  have  love  one  to  another.” 
(John  xiii.  34.)  This  benevolent  disposition  is  made  the  great  charac¬ 
teristic  of  a  Christian,  the  test  of  his  obedience,  and  the  mark  by 


of  Christianity,  205 

which  he  is  to  be  distinguished.  This  love  for  each  other  is  that 
charity  just  now  described,  and  contains  all  those  qualities,  which 
are  there  attributed  to  it ;  humility,  patience,  meekness,  and  benefi¬ 
cence  :  without  which  w'e  must  live  in  perpetual  discord,  and  con¬ 
sequently  cannot  pay  obedience  to  this  commandment  by  loving  one 
another;  a  commandment  so  sublime,  so  rational,  and  so  beneficial, 
so  wisely  calculated  to  correct  the  depravity,  diminish  the  wicked¬ 
ness,  and  abate  the  miseries  of  human  nature,  that,  did  we  univer¬ 
sally  comply  with  it,  we  should  soon  be  relieved  from  all  the  inquie¬ 
tudes  arising  from  our  own  unruly  passions,  anger,  envy,  revenge, 
malice,  and  ambition,  as  well  as  jfrom  all  those  injuries,  to  which 
we  are  perpetually  exposed  from  the  indulgence  of  the  same  pas¬ 
sions  in  others.  It  would  also  preserve  our  minds  in  such  a  state  of 
tranquillity,  and  so  prepare  them  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  that 
we  should  slide  out  of  a  life  of  peace,  love,  and  benevolence,  into 
that  celestial  society,  by  an  almost  imperceptible  transition.  Yet 
wus  this  commandment  entirely  new,  when  given  by  him,  w'ho  so 
entitles  it,  and  has  made  it  the  capital  duty  of  his  religion,  because 
the  most  indispensably  necessary  to  the  attainment  of  its  great  ob¬ 
ject,  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  into  which,  if  proud,  turbulent,  and 
vindictive  spirits  were  permitted  to  enter,  they  must  unavoidably 
destro}'-  the  happiness  of  that  state,  by  the  operations  of  the  same 
passions  and  vices  by  which  they  disturb  the  present ;  and  therefore 
all  such  must  be  eternally  excluded,  not  only  as  a  punishment,  but 
also  from  incapacity. 

Repentance,  by  this,  we  plainly  see,  is  another  new  moral  duty 
strenuously  insisted  on  by  this  religion,  and  by  no  other,  because 
absolutely  necessary  to  the  accomplishment  of  its  end ;  for  this 
alone  can  purge  us  from  those  transgressions,  from  which  we  can¬ 
not  be  totally  exempted  in  this  state  of  trial  and  temptation,  and 
purify  us  from  that  depravity  in  our  nature,  which  renders  us  in¬ 
capable  of  attaining  this  end.  Hence  also  we  may  learn,  that  no 
repentance  can  remove  this  incapacity,  but  such  as  entirely  changes 
the  nature  and  disposition  of  the  offender ;  which  in  the  language 
of  Scripture  is  called  “  being  born  again.”  Mere  contrition  for  past 
crimes,  nor  even  the  pardon  of  them,  cannot  effect  this,  unless  it 
operates  to  this  entire  conversion  or  new  birth,  as  it  is  p>’operly  and 
emphatically  named ;  for  sorrow  can  no  more  purify  a  mind  cor¬ 
rupted  by  a  long  continuance  in  vicious  habits,  than  it  can  restore 
health  to  a  body  distempered  by  a  long  course  of  vice  and  intem¬ 
perance.  Hence  also  every  one,  who  is  in  the  least  acquainted  with 
himself,  may  judge  of  the  reasonableness  of  the  hope  that  is  in  him, 
and  of  his  situation  in  a  future  state,  by  that  of  his  present.  If  he 
feels  in  himself  a  temper  proud,  turbulent,  vindictive,  and  malevo¬ 
lent,  and  a  violent  attachment  to  the  pleasures  or  business  of  the 
world,  he  may  be  assured,  that  he  must  be  excluded  from  the  king¬ 
dom  of  heaven ;  not  only  because  his  conduct  can  merit  no  such  re- 
w  ard,  but  because,  if  admitted,  he  would  find  there  no  objects  satis¬ 
factory  to  his  passions,  inclinations,  and  pursuits,  and  therefore  could 
S 


206  Jeriyns's  Internal  Evidence 


only  disturb  the  happiness  of  others  without  enjoying  any  share  of 
it  himself 

Faith  is  another  moral  duty  enjoined  by  this  institution,  of  a  spe¬ 
cies  so  new,  that  the  philosophers  of  antiquity  had  no  word  expres¬ 
sive  of  this  idea,  nor  any  such  idea  to  be  expressed ;  for  the  word 
■TZLUTig  or  yi^es,  which  we  translate  faith,  was  never  used  by  any 
Fagan  writer,  in  a  sense  the  least  similar  to  thab  to  which  it  is  ap¬ 
plied  in  the  New  Testament:  where  in  general  it  signifies  an  hum¬ 
ble,  teachable,  and  candid  disposition,  a  trust  in  God,  and  confidence 
in  his  promises ;  when  applied  particularly  ro  Christianity,  it  means 
no  more  than  a  belief  of  this  single  proposition,  that  Christ  was  the 
Son  of  God ;  that  is,  in  the  language  of  those  writings,  the  Messiah, 
who  was  foretold  by  the  prophets,  and  expected  by  the  Jews;  who 
was  sent  by  God  into  the  world  to  preach  righteousness,  judgment, 
and  everlasting  life,  and  to  die  as  an  atonement  for  the  sins  of  man¬ 
kind.  This  was  all  that  Christ  required  to  be  believed  by  those  who 
were  willing  to  become  his  disciples ;  he,  wdio  does  not  believe  this, 
is  not  a  Christian,  and  he  who  does,  believes  the  whole  that  is  es¬ 
sential  to  his  profession,  and  all  that  is  properly  comprehended  un¬ 
der  the  name  of  faith.  This  unfortunate  word  has  indeed  been  so 
tortured  and  so  misapplied  to  mean  every  absurdity,  which  artifice 
could  impose  upon  ignorance,  that  it  has  lost  all  pretensions  to  the 
title  of  virtue ;  but  if  brought  back  to  the  simplicity  of  its  original 
signification,  it  well  deserves  that  name,  because  it  usually  arises 
from  the  most  amiable  dispositions,  and  is  always  a  direct  contrast  to 
pride,  obstinacy,  and  self-conceit.  If  taken  in  the  extensive  sense 
of  an  assent  to  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen,  it  comprehends  the 
existence  of  a  God,  and  a  future  state,  and  is  therefore  not  only 
itself  a  moral  virtue,  but  the  source  from  whence  all  others  must 
proceed ;  for  on  the  belief  of  these  all  religion  and  morality  must 
entirely  depend.  It  cannot  be  altogether  void  of  moral  merit  (as 
some  will  represent  it),  because  it  is  in  a  degree  voluntary ;  for  daily- 
experience  shows  us,  that  men  not  only  pretend  to,  but  actually  do 
believe,  and  disbelieve  almost  any  propositions,  which  best  suit 
their  interests  or  inclinations,  and  unfeignedly  change  their  sincere 
opinions  with  their  situations  and  circumstances.  For  we  have 
power  over  the  mind’s  eye,  as  well  as  over  the  body’s,  to  shut  it 
against  the  strongest  rays  of  truth  and  religion,  whenever  they  be¬ 
come  painful  to  us,  and  to  open  it  again  to  the  faint  glimmerings  of 
scepticism  and  infidelity  when  we  “  love  darkness  rather  than  light, 
because  our  deeds  are  evil.”  (John  iii.  19.)  And  this,  I  think,  suffi¬ 
ciently  refutes  all  objections  to  the  moral  nature  of  faith,  drawn 
from  the  supposition  of  its  being  quite  involunta^,  and  necessarily 
dependent  on  the  degree  of  evidence,  which  is  ofitered  to  our  under¬ 


standings.  . 

Self-abasement  is  another  moral  duty  inculcated  by  this  religion 
only;  which  requires  us  to  impute  even  our  owm  virtues  to  the 
grace  and  favor  of  our  Creator,  and  to  acknowledge,  that  we  can 
do  nothing  good  by  our  own  powers,  unless  assisted  by  his  over¬ 
ruling  influence.  This  doctrine  seems  at  first  sight  to  infringe  on 


of  Christianity.  207 

our  free-will,  and  to  deprive  us  of  all  merit ;  but,  on  a  closer  ex¬ 
amination,  the  truth  of  it  may  be  demonstrated  both  by  reason  and 
experience,  and  that  in  fact  it  does  not  impair  the  one,  or  depreciate 
the  other;  and  that  it  is  productive  of  so  much  humility,  resignation, 
and  dependence  on  God,  that  it  justly  claims  a  place  amongst  the 
most  illustrious  moral  virhaes.  Yet  was  this  duty  utterly  repugnant 
to  the  proud  and  self-sufficient  principles  of  the  ancient  philosophers 
as  well  as  modern  deists,  and  therefore  before  the  publication  of  the 
Gospel  totally  unknown  and  uncomprehended. 

Detachment  from  the  world  is  another  moral  virtue  constituted 
by  this  religion  alone ;  so  new,  that  even  at  this  day  few  of  its  pro¬ 
fessors  can  be  persuaded,  that  it  is  required,  or  that  it  is  any  virtue 
at  all.  By  this  detachment  from  the  world  is  not  tci  be  understood  a 
seclusion  from  society,  abstraction  from  all  business,  or  retirement 
to  a  gloomy  cloister.  Industry  and  labor,  cheerfulness  and  hospi¬ 
tality  are  frequently  recommended ;  nor  is  the  acquisition  of  wealth 
and  honors  prohibited,  if  they  can  be  obtained  by  honest  means,  and 
a  moderate  degree  of  attention  and  care ;  but  such  an  unremitted 
anxiety  and  perpetual  application,  as  engrosses  our  whole  time  and 
thoughts,  are  forbid,  because  they  are  incompatible  with  the  spirit 
of  this  religion,  and  must  utterly  disqualify  us  for  the  attainment  of 
its  great  end.  We  toil  on  in  the  vain  pursuits  and  frivolous  occupa¬ 
tions  of  the  world,  die  in  our  harness,  and  then  expect,  if  no  gigan¬ 
tic  crime  stands  in  the  way,  to  step  immediately  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven ;  but  this  is  impossible !  for  without  a  previous  detachment 
from  the  business  of  this  world,  we  cannot  be  prepared  for  the  hap¬ 
piness  of  another.  Yet  this  could  make  no  part  of  the  morality  of 
ragans,  because  their  virtues  were  altogether  connected  with  this 
business,  and  consisted  chiefly  in  conducting  it  with  honor  to  them¬ 
selves,  and  benefit  to  the  public.  But  Ghristianity  has  a  nobler  ob¬ 
ject  in  view,  which,  if  not  attended  to,  must  be  lost  for  ever.  This 
object  IS  that  celestial  mansion  of  which  we  should  never  lose  sight, 
and  to  which  we  should  be  ever  advancing  during  our  journey 
through  life ;  but  this  by  no  means  precludes  us  from  performing 
the  business,  or  enjoying  the  amusements  of  travellers,  provided 
they  detain  us  not  too  long,  or  lead  us  too  far  out  of  our  way. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  great  author  of  the  Christian  institu¬ 
tion  first  and  singly  ventured  to  oppose  all  the  chief  principles  of 
Pagan  virtue,  and  to  introduce  a  rehgion  directly  opposite  to  those 
erroneous,  though  long-established,  opinions,  both  in  its  duties  and 
in  its  object.  The  most  celebrated  virtues  of  the  ancients  were 
high  spirit,  intrepid  courage,  and  implacable  resentment. 

Impiger,  iracundus,  inexorabilis,  acer,  was  the  portrait  of  the  most 
illustrious  hero,  drawn  by  one  of  the  first  poets  of  antiquity.  To  all 
these  admired  qualities,  those  of  a  true  Christian  are  an  exact  con¬ 
trast  ;  for  this  religion  constantly  enjoins  poorness  of  spirit,  meek¬ 
ness,  patience,  and  forgiveness  of  injuries.  “But  I  say  unto  you, 
that  ye  resist  not  evil ;  but  whoever  shall  smite  thee  on  the  right 
cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also.”  (Matt.  v.  39.)  The  favorite  char¬ 
acters  among  the  Pagans  were,  the  turbulent,  ambitious,  and  in- 


208  Jenyns’s  Internal  Evidence 

irepid,  who  through  toils  and  dangers  acquired  wealth,  and  spent  it 
in  luxury,  magnificence,  and  corruption;  but  both  these  are  equally 
adverse  to  the  Christian  system,  which  forbids  all  extraordinary 
efforts  to  obtain  wealth,  care  to  secure,  or  thought  concerning  the 
enjoyment  of  it.  “  Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures  on  earth,”  &c. 
“  Take  no  thought,  saying,  what  shall  we  eat,  or  what  shall  we 
drink,  or  wherewithal  shall  we  be  clothed  ?  for  after  all  these  things 
do  the  Gentiles  seek.”  (Matt.  vi.  31.)  The  chief  object  of  the  Pa¬ 
gans  was  immortal  fame:  for  this,  their  poets  sang,  their  heroes 
fought,  and  their  patriots  died ;  and  this  was  hung  out  by  their 
philosophers  and  legislators  as  the  great  incitement  to  all  noble  and 
virtuous  deeds.  But  what  says  the  Christian  legislator  to  his  disciples 
on  this  subject?  “Blessed  are  ye,  when  men  shall  revile  you,  and 
shall  say  all  manner  of  evil  against  you  for  my  sake  ;  rejoice,  and 
be  exceeding  glad,  for  great  is  your  reward  in  heaven.”  (Matt.  v.  11.) 
So  widely  different  is  the  genius  of  the  Pagan  and  Christian  moral¬ 
ity,  that  I  will  venture  to  affirm,  that  the  most  celebrated  virtues  of 
the  former  are  more  opposite  to  the  spirit,  and  more  inconsistent 
with  the  end  of  the  latter,  than  even  their  most  infamous  vices ; 
and  that  a  Brutus,  wrenching  vengeance  out  of  his  hands  to  w  hom 
alone  it  belongs,  by  murdering  the  oppressor  of  his  country,  or  a 
Cato,  murdering  himself  from  an  impatience  of  control,  leaves  the 
world  more  unqualified  for,  and  more  inadmissible  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  than  even  a  Messalina,  or  a  Pleliogabalus,  with  all  their 
profligacy  about  them. 

Nothing,  I  believe,  has  so  much  contributed  to  corrupt  the  true 
spirit  of  the  Christian  institution,  as  that  partiality,  which  we  con¬ 
tract  from  our  earliest  education  for  the  manners  of  Pagan  antiquity: 
from  whence  W'e  learn  to  adopt  every  moral  idea,  which  is  repug¬ 
nant  to  it;  to  applaud  false  virtues,  which  that  disavows;  to  be 
guided  by  law's  of  honor,  which  that  abhors ;  to  imitate  characters, 
which  that  detests ;  and  to  behold  heroes,  patriots,  conquerors,  and 
suicides  with  admiration,  whose  conduct  that  utterly  condemns. 
From  a  coalition  of  these  opposite  principles  was  generated  that 
monstrous  system  of  cruelty  and  benevolence,  of  barbarism  and 
civility,  of  rapine  and  justice,  of  fighting  and  devotion,  of  revenge 
and  generosity,  which  harassed  the  world  for  several  centuries  with 
crusades,  holy  wars,  knight-errantry,  and  single  combats,  and  even 
still  retains  influence  enough,  under  the  name  of  honor,  to  defeat 
the  most  beneficent'  ends  of  this  holy  institution.  I  mean  not  by  this 
to  pass  any  censure  on  the  principles  of  valor,  patriotism,  or  honor : 
they  may  be  useful,  and  perhaps  necessary,  in  the  commerce  and 
business  of  the  present  turbulent  and  imperfect  state ;  and  those 
who  are  actuated  by  them  may  be  virtuous,  honest,  and  even  reli- 
gioTis  men :  all  that  I  assert  is,  that  they  cannot  be  Christians.  A 
profligate  may  be  a  Christian,  though  a  bad  one,  because  he  may  be 
overpowered  by  passions  and  temptations,  and  his  actions  may  con¬ 
tradict  his  principles ;  but  a  man,  whose  ruling  principle  is  honor, 
however  virtuous  lie  may  be,  cannot  be  a  Christian,  because  he 


of  Christianity.  S09 

erects  a  standard  of  duty,  and  deliberately  adheres  to  it,  diametri¬ 
cally  opposite  to  the  whole  tenor  of  that  religion. 

The  contrast  between  the  Christian,  and  all  other  institutions  re¬ 
ligious  or  moral  previous  to  its  appearance,  is  sufficiently  evident, 
and  surely  the  superiority  of  the  fbnner  is  as  little  to  be  disputed  ; 
unless  any  one  shall  undertake  to  prove,  that  humility,  patience, 
forgiveness,  and  benevolence  are  less  amiable,  and  less  beneficial 
qualities  than  pride,  turbulence,  revenge,  and  malignity :  that  the 
contempt  of  riches  is  less  noble  than  their  acquisition  by  fraud  and 
villany,  or  tlie  distribution  of  them  to  the  poor  less  commendable 
than  avarice  or  profusion;  or  that  a  real  immortality  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  is  an  object  less  exalted,  less  rational,  and  less  worthy  of 
pursuit,  than  an  imaginary  immortality  in  the  applause  of  men: 
that  worthless  tribute,  which  the  folly  of  one  part  of  mankind  pays 
to  the  wickedness  of  the  other ;  a  tribute,  which  a  wise  man  ought 
always  to  despise,  because  a  good  man  can  scarce  ever  obtain. 


CONCLUSIOxV. 

If  I  mistake  not,  I  have  now  fully  established  the  truth  of  my 
three  propositions ; — 

First,  That  there  is  now  extant  a  book  entitled  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment. 

Secondly,  That  from  this  book  may  be  extracted  a  system  of  reli¬ 
gion  entirely  new ;  both  in  its  object,  and  its  doctrines,  not  only  su¬ 
perior  to,  but  totally  unlike  every  thing,  which  had  ever  before 
entered  into  the  mind  of  man. 

Thirdly,  That  from  this  book  may  likewise  be  collected  a  system 
of  ethics,  in  which  every  moral  precept  founded  on  reason  is  carried 
to  a  higher  degree  of  purity  and  perfection,  than  in  any  other  of  the 
wisest  philosophers  of  preceding  ages ;  every  moral  precept  founded 
on  false  principles  totally  omitted,  and  many  new  precepts  added, 
peculiarly  corresponding  with  the  new  object  of  this  religion. 

Every  one  of  these  propositions,  I  am  persuaded,  is  incontroverti- 
bly  true  ;  and  if  true,  this  short  but  certain  conclusion  must  inevita¬ 
bly  follow ;  that  sucia  a  system  of  religion  and  morality  could  not 
possibly  have  been  the  work  of  anj^  man,  or  set  of  men,  much  less 
of  those  obscure,  ignorant,  and  illiterate  persons,  who  actually  did 
discover,  and  publish  it  to  the  world ;  and  that  therefore  it  must 
have  been  effected  by  the  supernatural  interposition  of  divine  power 
and  wisdom ;  that  is,  that  it  must  derive  its  origin  from  God. 

This  argument  seems  to  me  little  short  of  demonstration,  and  is 
indeed  founded  on  the  very  same  reasoning,  by  which  the  material 
world  is  proved  to  be  the  work  of  his  invisible  hand.  We  view 
with  admiration  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  all  therein  con¬ 
tained  ;  we  contemplate  with  amazement  the  minute  bodies  of  ani¬ 
mals  too  small  for  perception,  and  the  immense  planetary  orbs  too 
vast  for  imagination.  We  are  certain  that  these  cannot  be  the  works 
of  man ;  and  therefore  we  conclude  with  reason,  that  they  must  be 
S2 


2i0 


Jenyns's  Internal  Evidence 

the  productions  of  an  omnipotent  Creator.  In  the  same  manner  we 
see  here  a  sclieme  of  religion  and  morality  unlike  and  superior  to 
all  ideas  of  the  human  mind,  equally  impossible  to  have  been  dis¬ 
covered  by  the  knowledge,  as  invented  by  the  artifice  of  man ;  and 
therefore  by  the  very  same  mode  of  reasoning,  and  with  the  same 
justice,  we  conclude,  that  it  must  derive  its  origin  from  the  same 
omnipotent  and  omniscient  Being. 

Nor  was  the  propagation  of  this  religion  less  extraordinary  than 
the  religion  itself,  or  less  above  the  reach  of  all  human  power,  than 
the  discovery  of  it  was  above  that  of  all  human  understanding.  It 
is  well  known,  that  in  the  course  of  a  very  few  years  it  was  spread 
over  all  the  principal  parts  of  Asia  and  of  Europe,  and  this  by  the 
ministry  only  of  an  inconsiderable  number  of  the  most  inconsidera¬ 
ble  persons ;  that  at  this  time  Paganism  was  in  the  highest  repute, 
believed  universally  by  the  vulgar,  and  patronized  by  the  great ; 
that  the  wisest  men  of  the  wisest  nations  assisted  at  its  sacrifices, 
and  consulted  its  oracles  on  the  most  important  occasions.  Whether 
these  were  the  tricks  of  the  priests  or  of  the  devil,  is  of  no  conse¬ 
quence,  as  they  were  both  equally  unlikely  to  be  converted,  or 
overcome ;  the  fact  is  certain,  that,  on  the  preaching  of  a  few  fisher¬ 
men,  their  altars  were  deserted,  and  their  deities  were  dumb.  This 
miracle  they  undoubtedly  performed,  whatever  we  may  think  of 
the  rest :  and  this  is  surely  sufficient  to  prove  the  authority  of  their 
commission ;  and  to  convince  us,  that  neither  their  undertaking  nor 
the  execution  of  it  could  possibly  be  their  own. 

How  much  this  divine  institution  has  been  corrupted,  or  how 
soon  these  corruptions  began,  how  far  it  has  been  discolored  by  the 
false  notions  of  illiterate  ages,  or  blended  with  fictions  by  pious 
frauds,  or  how  early  these  notions  and  fictions  were  introduced,  no 
learning  or  sagacity  is  now  able  precisely  to  ascertain ;  but  surely 
no  man,  who  seriously  considers  the  excellence  and  novelty  of  its 
doctrines,  the  manner  in  which  it  was  at  first  propagated  through 
the  world,  the  persons  who  achieved  that  wonderful  work,  and  the 
originality  of  those  writings  in  which  it  is  still  recorded,  can  possi¬ 
bly  believe,  that  it  could  ever  have  been  the  production  of  impos¬ 
ture,  or  chance ;  or  that  from  an  imposture  the  most  Avicked  and 
blasphemous  (for  if  an  imposture,  such  it  is)  all  the  religion  and 
virtue  now  existing  on  earth  can  derive  their  source. 

But,  notwithstanding  what  has  been  here  urged,  if  any  man  can 
believe,  that  at  a  time  when  the  literature  of  Greece  and  Rome, 
then  in  their  meridian  lustre,  were  insufficient  for  the  task,  the  son 
of  a  ca  rpenter,  together  with  twelve  of  the  meanest  and  most  illite¬ 
rate  mechanics  his  associates,  unassisted  by  any  supernatural  power, 
should  be  able  to  discover  or  invent  a  system  of  theology  the  most 
sublime,  and  of  ethics  the  most  perfect,  which  had  escaped  the  pen¬ 
etration  and  learning  of  Plato,  Aristotle,  and  Cicero  ;  and  that  from 
this  system,  by  their  own- sagacity,  they  had  excluded  every  false 
virtue,  though  universally  admired,  and  admitted  every  true  virtue, 
though  despised  and  ridiculed  by  all  the  rest  of  the  world ; — if  any 
one  can  believe  that  these  men  could  become  impostors,  for  no  other 


211 


of  Christianity. 

purpose  than  the  propagation  of  truth,  villains  for  no  end  but  to 
teach  honesty,  and  martyrs  without  the  least  prospect  of  honor  or 
advantage ;  or  that,  if  all  this  should  have  been  possible,  these  few 
inconsiderable  persons  should  have  been  able,  in  the  course  of  a 
few  yearn,  to  have  spread  this  their  religion  over  most  parts  of  the 
then  known  world,  in  opposition  to  the  interests,  pleasures,  ambi¬ 
tion,  prejudices,  and  even  reason  of  mankind  ;  to  have  triumphed 
over  the  pow’er  of  princes,  the  intrigues  of  states,  the  force  of  cus¬ 
tom,  the  blindness  of  zeal,  the  influence  of  priests,  the  arguments  of 
orators,  and  the  philosophy  of  the  world,  without  any  supernatural 
assistance ; — if  any  one  can  believe  all  these  miraculous  events, 
contradictory  to  the  constant  experience  of  the  powers  and  disposi¬ 
tions  of  human  nature,  he  must  be  possessed  of  much  more  faith 
than  is  necessary  to  make  him  a  Christian,  and  remain  an  unbeliever 
from  mere  credulity. 

But  should  these  credulous  infidels  after  all  be  in  the  right,  and 
this  pretended  revelation  be  all  a  fable ;  from  believing  it  what 
harm  could  ensue  ?  Would  it  render  princes  more  tyrannical,  or 
subjects  more  ungovernable  ?  the  rich  more  insolent,  or  the  poor 
more  disorderly?  Would  it  make  worse  parents  or  children,  hus¬ 
bands  or  waves,  masters  or  servants,  friends  or  neighbors  ?  Or  would 
it  not  make  men  more  virtuous,  and  consequently  more  happy  in 
every  situation  ?  It  could  not  be  criminal ;  it  could  not  be  detrimen¬ 
tal.  It  could  not  be  criminal,  because  it  cannot  be  a  crime  to  assent 
to  such  evidence,  as  has  been  able  to  convince  the  best  and  wisest 
of  mankind  ;  by  which,  if  false.  Providence  must  have  permitted 
men  to  deceive  each  other,  for  the  most  beneficial  ends,  and  which 
therefore  it  would  be  surely  more  meritorious  to  believe,  from  a  dis¬ 
position  of  faith  and  charity,  which  believeth  all  things,  than  to  re¬ 
ject  with  scorn  from  obstinacy  and  self-conceit.  It  cannot  be  detri¬ 
mental,  because,  if  Christianity  is  a  fable,  it  is  a  fable,  the  belief  of 
which  is  the  only  principle  which  can  retain  men  in  a  steady  and 
uniform  course  of  virtue,  piety,  and  devotion,  or  can  support  them 
in  the  hour  of  distress,  of  sickness,  and  of  death.  Whatever  might 
be  the  operations  of  true  deism  on  the  minds  of  Pagan  philosophers, 
that  can  now  avail  us  nothing;  for  that  light,  which  once  lightened 
the  Gentiles,  is  now  absorbed  in  the  brighter  illumination  of  the 
Gospel ;  we  can  now  form  no  rational  system  of  deism,  but  what 
must  be  borrowed  from  that  source,  and,  as  far  as  it  reaches  towards 
perfection,  must  be  exactly  the  same ;  and  therefore,  if  we  will  not 
accept  of  Christianity,  we  will  have  no  religion  at  all.  Accordingly 
we  see,  that  those  w’ho  fly  from  this,  scarce  ever  stop  at  deism ;  but 
hasten  on,  with  great  alaciity  to  a  total  rejection  of  all  religious  and 
moral  principles  whatever. 

If  I  have  here  demonstrated  the  divine  origin  of  the  Christian  re- 
■*  ligion  by  an  argument  which  cannot  be  confuted  ;  no  others,  how¬ 
ever  plausible  or  numerous,  founded  on  probabilities,  doubts,  and 
conjectures,  can  ever  disprove  it,  because,  if  it  is  once  shown  to  be 
true,  it  cannot  be  false.  But  as  many  arguments  of  this  kind  have 
bewildered  some  candid  and  ingenuous  minds,  I  shall  here  bestow 


212 


Jenyns’s  Internal  Evidence 

« 

a  few  lines  on  those  which  have  the  most  weight,  in  order  to  wipe 
oiit,  or  at  least  to  diminish  their  perplexing  influence. 

But  here  I  must  previously  observe,  that  the  most  unsurmounta- 
ble,  as  well  as  the  most  usual  obstacle  to  our  belief,  arises  from  our 
passions,  appetites,  and  interests  ;  for  faith  being  an  act  of  the  will 
as  much  as  of  the  understanding,  we  oftener  disbelieve  for  want  of 
inclination,  than  want  of  evidence.  The  first  step  towards  thinking 
this  revelation  true,  is  our  hope  that  it  is  so ;  for  whenever  we  much 
wish  any  proposition  to  be  true,  we  are  not  far  from  believing  it.  It 
is  certainly  for  the  interest  of  all  good  men,  that  its  authority  should 
be  well  founded ;  and  still  more  beneficial  to  the  bad,  if  ever  they 
intend  to  be  better;  because  it  is  the  only  system,  either  of  reason 
or  religion,  which  can  give  tliem  any  assurance  of  pardon.  The 
punishment  of  vice  is  a  debt  due  to  justice,  which  cannot  be  rendt- 
ted  without  compensation  :  repentance  can  be  no  compensation ;  it 
may  change  a  wicked  man’s  disposition,  and  prevent  his  offending 
for  the  future,  but  can  lay  no  claim  to  pardon  for  what  is  past.  If 
any  one,  by  profligacy  and  extravagance,  contracts  a  debt,  repent¬ 
ance  may  make  him  wiser,  and  hinder  him  from  running  into  fur¬ 
ther  distresses,  but  can  never  pay  off  his  old  bonds ;  for  which  he  must 
be  ever  accountable,  unless  they  are  discharged  by  himself,  or  some 
other  in  his  stead  ;  this  very  discharge  Christianity  alone  holds  forth 
on  our  repentance,  and,  if  true,  will  certainly  perform:  the  truth  of 
it  therefore  must  ardently  be  wished  for  by  all,  except  the  wicked, 
who  are  determined  neither  to  repent  nor  reform.  It  is  well  worth 
every  man’s  while,  who  either  is,  or  intends  to  be  virtuous,  to  be¬ 
lieve  Christianity,  if  he  can  ;  because  he  will  find  it  the  surest  pre¬ 
servative  against  all  vicious  habits  and  their  attendant  evils,  tlie 
best  resource  under  distresses  and  disappointments,  ill  health  and 
ill  fortune,  and  the  firmest  basis  on  which  contemplation  can  rest ; 
and  without  some,  the  human  mind  is  never  perfectly  at  ease.  But 
if  any  one  is  attached  to  a  favorite  pleasure,  or  eagerly  engaged  in 
worldly  pursuits  incompatible  with  the  precepts  of  this  religion,  and 
he  believes  it,  he  must  either  relinquish  those  pursuits  with  uneasi¬ 
ness,  or  persist  in  them  with  remorse  and  dissatisfaction,  and  there¬ 
fore  must  commence  unbeliever  in  his  own  defence.  With  such  I 
shall  not  dispute,  nor  pretend  to  persuade  men  by  arguments  to 
make  themselves  miserable  :  but  to  those,  who,  not  afraid  that  this 
religion  may  be  true,  are  really  affected  by  such  objections,  I  will 
offer  the  following  answers,  which,  though  short,  will,  I  doubt  not, 
be  sufficient  to  show  them  their  weakness  and  futility. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  some  have  been  so  bold  as  to  strike  at  the 
root  of  all  revelation  from  God,  by  asserting,  that  it  is  incredible, 
because  unnecessary,  and  unnecessary,  because  the  reason  which 
he  has  bestowed  on  manidnd  is  sufficiently  able  to  discover  all  the 
religious  and  moral  duties  which  he  requires  of  them,  if  they  would 
but  attend  to  her  precepts,  and  be  guided  by  her  friendly  admoni¬ 
tions.  Mankind  have  undoubtedly,  at  various  times  from  the  re¬ 
motest  ages,  received  so  much  knowledge  by  divine  communica¬ 
tions,  and  have  ever  been  so  much  inclined  to  impute  it  all  to  their 


of  Christianity.  213 

own  sufficiency,  that  it  is  now  difficult  to  determine  what  human 
reason  unassisted  can  effect.  But  to  form  a  true  judgment  on  this 
subject,  let  us  turn  our  eyes  to  those  remote  regions  of  the  globe,  to 
which  this  supernatural  assistance  has  never  yet  extended,  and  we 
shall  there  see  men,  endued  with  sense  and  reason  not  inferior  to 
our  own,  so  far  from  being  capable  of  forming  systems  of  religion 
and  morality,  that  they  are  at  this  day  totally  unable  to  make  a  nail 
or  a  hatchet ;  from  whence  we  may  surely  be  convinced,  that  rea¬ 
son  alone  is  so  far  from  being  sufficient  to  offer  to  mankind  a  perfect 
religion,  that  it  has  never  yet  been  able  to  lead  them  to  any  degree 
of  culture  or  civilization  whatever.  These  have  uniformly  flowed 
ffom  that  great  fountain  of  divine  communication  opened  in  the 
East,  in  the  earliest  ages,  and  thence  been  gradually  diffused  in 
^lubrious  streams,  throughout  the  various  regions  of  the  earth. 
Their  nse  and  progress,  by  surveying  the  history  of  the  world,  may 
easily  be  traced  backwards  to  their  source  5  and  wherever  these 
have  not  as  yet  been  able  to  penetrate,  we  there  find  the  human 
specms  not  only  void  of  all  true  religious  and  moral  sentiments,  but 

not  th^e  least  emerged  from  their  original  ignorance  and  barbarity; 

which  seems  a  demonstration,  that  although  human  reason  is  capa¬ 
ble  of  progression  in  science,  yet  the  first  foundations  must  be  laid 
by  supernatural  instructions;  for  surely  no  other  probable  cause  can 
be  assigned  why  one  part  of  mankind  should  have  made  such  an 
amazing  progress  in  religious,  moral,  metaphysical,  and  philosophical 
inquiries ;  such  w’onderful  improvements  in  policy,  legislation,  com- 
meroe,  and  manufactures,  while  the  other  part,  formed  with  the 
capacities,  and  divided  only  by  seas  and  mountains, 
should  remain,  during  the  same  number  of  ages,  in  a  state  little 
superior  to  brutes,  without  government,  without  laws  or  letters,  and 
even  without  clothes  and  habitations;  murdering  each  other  to 
satiate  their  revenge,  and  devouring  each  other  to  appease  their 
hunger.  I  say  no  cause  can  be  assigned  for  this  amazing  difference, 
except  that  the  first  have  received  information  from  those  divine 
communications  recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  and  the  latter  have 
never  yet  been  favored  with  such  assistance.  This  remarkable  con¬ 
trast  seems  an  unanswerable,  though,  perhaps,  a  new  proof  of  the 
necessity  of  revelation,  and  a  solid  refutation  of  all  arguments  against 
It,  drawn  from  the  sufficiency  of  human  reason.  And  as  reason  in 
her  natural  state  is  thus  incapable  of  making  any  progress  in  know’- 
ledge ;  so  when  furnished  with  materials  by  supernatural  aid,  if 
left  to  the  guidance  of  her  owui  wild  imaginations,  she  falls  into 
more  numerous,  and  more  gross  errors,  than  her  own  native  igno¬ 
rance  could  ever  have  suggested.  There  is  then  no  absurdity  so 
extravagant,  which  she  is  not  ready  to  adopt;  she  has  persuaded 
som^  that  there  is  no  God  ;  others,  that  there  can  be  no  future  state : 
she  has  taught  some,  that  there  is  no  difference  between  vice  and 
virtue,  and  that  to  cut  a  man’s  throat  and  to  relieve  his  necessities 
are  actions  equally  meritorious :  she  has  convinced  many,  that  thdy 
free-will,  in  opposition  to  their  own  experience ;  some,  that 
a  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  soul,  or  spirit,  contrary  to  their 


214 


Jenyns's  Intevnal  Evidence 


own  nerceptions:  and  others,  no  such  thing  as  matter,  or  body,  in 

contradiction  to  their  senses.  Bv  analyzing  f 

that  there  is  nothing  in  any  thing ;  by  perpetual  sitPng  stie  can 
reduce  all  existence  to  the  invisible  dust  of  scepticisni ;  and,  by 
recurring  to  first  principles,  prove,  to  the  satisfaction  of  her  follow- 
IS™.®. he?e  2  no  pSne.&es  at  all.  How  a  ‘J 

be  depended  on  in  the  important  concerns  of  “‘'«X?™iSe  This 
leave  to  the  judgment  of  every  considerate  .^o  3;ation 
IS  certain,  that  human  reason  in  its  highest 
amongst  the  philosophers  of  Greece  and  Rome, 

form!  religion  comparable  to  Christianity;  nor  have  all^jhose 
sources  of  moral  virtue,  such  as  truth,  beauty,  and  „„y,„titnte 
things,  which  modern  philosophers  have  endeavored  to  substitute 
in  its  stead,  ever  been  effectual  to  produce 

themselves  often  been  the  productions  of  be 

Others  there  are,  who  a  low,  that  a 
both  necessary,  and  credible ;  but  allege,  that  f 
the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  cannot  be  that  revela- 
llSi-btal  in  them  are  to  ^^e  found  errors 


tion;  because  in  tnem  are  lo  “r.vu  r-P  rnii  never 

fabulous  stories,  false  facts,  and  false  philosop  y . 
be  derived  from  the  fountain  of  oil  wisdom  'ind  jru^ 


he  derived  Irom  me  louniaiii  ui  un  wiciiwui  - - —  - 

reply  that  I  readily  acknowledge,  that  the  Scriptures  are  not  dev¬ 
iations  from  God,  Lt  the  history  of  them:  the  revelation  itself  is 
derived  from  God;  but  the  histoiy  of  it  is  the 

and  therefore  the  truth  of  it  is  not  in  the  least  affected  by  their  fa.- 
bbility  but  depends  on  the  internal  evidence  of  its  own  supernatu¬ 
ral  eSellence.^  If  in  these  books  such  a  religion, 
described,  actually  exists,  no  seeming,  or  even  f 
found  in  them  can  disprove  the  chvine  origin  of  tjos  reli^  . 
invalidate  mv  argument.  Let  us,  for  instance,  grant,  that  the  Mo 

saic  history  ddP  tire  ere  ^  ryiimd  tbe  eartli  to  be  a 

lar  principles  of  those  early  ages,  who  imagined  the  earth  to  be  a 

vast  plainf  and  the  celestial  bodies  no  more  than  luminaries 
UP  in  the  concave  firmament  to  enlighten  it ;  will  it  fi^om  thence 
foUow,  that  Moses  could  not  be  a  proper  instrument  in  ‘^be  ban  s 
Providence,  to  impart  to  the  Jews  a  divine  law,  because  he  was  no 
Aspired  with  a  foreknowledge  of  the  Coperiiican  and  Newtonian 
systems  ?  or  that  Christ  must  be  an  impostor,  because  Mo^s  was 
not  an  astronomer  ?  Let  us  also  suppose,  that  the 
temptation  in  the  wilderness,  the  devils  takin^e  S  ^ 

of  swine,  with  several  other  narrations  in  the  New  ^  im 

ouentlv  ridiculed  by  unbelievers,  were  all  but  stories  accommodated 

?o  thi"^"  superstitions  of  the  b- loT™  on 

which  they  were  written,  or  pious  frauds,  intended  to  impress  on 
mindra  higher  reverence  of  the  power  and  sanctity  of 
Christ-  will  this  in  the  least  impeach  the  excellence  of  his  religion, 
or  the  authority  of  its  founder  ?  or  is  Christianity  for  a 

the  fables  of  which  it  may  have  been  the  '"^hrisfiL 

want  of  this  obvious  distinction  has  much  injured  the  Utirisnan 
Tauserbecafse  on  th«  ground  it  ha.s  ever  been  most  succesefully 


of  Christianity,  215 

attacked,  and  on  this  ground  it  is  not  easily  to  be  defended:  for  if 
of  this  revelation  are  supposed  to  be  the  revelation 
Itself  the  least  defect  discovered  in  them  must  be  fatal  to  the 
whole.  What  has  led  many  to  overlook  this  distinction  is  that  com¬ 
mon  phrase,  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God ;  and  in  one 
sense  they  certainly  are ;  that  is,  they  are  the  sacred  repository  of 
all  the  revelations,  dispensations,  promises,  and  precepts  which  God 
has  vouchsafed  to  communicate  to  mankind ;  but  by  this  expression 
understand,  that  every  part  of  this  voluminous  col- 
historical,  poetical,  prophetical,  theological,  and  moral 
•  SS)  which  we  call  the  Bible,  was  dictated  by  the  immediate 
uence  of  divine  inspiration :  the  authors  of  these  books  pretended 
no  such  infallibility ;  and  if  they  claim  it  not  for  themselves,  who 
has  authority  to  claim  it  for  them  ?  Christ  required  no  such  belief 
trom  those  who  were  willing  to  be  his  disciples.  He  says,  “He  that 
Hopru!*  on  me  hath  everlpting  life,”  (John  vi.47);  but  where 
es  he  say.  He  that  belie veth  not  every  wwd  contained  in  the  Old 
1  estamenf  which  was  then  extant,  or  every  word  of  the  New  Tes- 
ament,  which  was  to  be  wrote  for  the  instruction  of  future  gene¬ 
rations,  hath  not  everlasting  life?  There  are  innumerable  occur¬ 
rences  related  in  the  Scriptures,  some  of  greater,  some  of  less,  and 
some  of  no  importance  at  all ;  the  truth  of  which  we  can  have  no 

of  is  surely  not  essential  to 
^oubt  but  that  St.  Paul  w^as  ship- 
wrecked,  and  ^at  he  left  his  cloak  and  parchments  at  Troas ;  but 

tiffU  c  i  part  of  Christianity,  nor  is  the 

"""J.P^oof  of  Its  authority.  It  proves  only  that  this 
nf  infoii  Ki^^*^  in  common  life  be  under  the  perpetual  influence 
nnt  J.o®P^^^Pon  ,•  for,  had  he  been  so,  he  would  not  have 

werl  ^  ^  his  cloak.  These  writers 

directed  by  supernatural  influence  in  all  things 

Tt  appointed  to  perform. 

^  ^  on  particular  occasions,  they  were  enabled 

in  ou  languages,  and  to  work  miracles ;  but 

I n  ^  circumstances,  they  seem  to  have  been  left  to  the  direc- 
understandings  like  other  men.  In  the  sciences 
tirn'o  K  Saagraphy,  astronomy,  and  philosophy,  they  appear  to 
less  no  better  instructed  than  others,  and  therefore  were  not 
nnft  n  f  errors  and  prejudices  of  the  times 

met  -^7  honest 

Srdefl  f  knowledge  or  information,  and  they  re- 

hm  ^  the  utmost  fidelity: 

thefi-  r  T  P^atended  to  no  infallibility,  for  they  sometimes  differed  in 
AlTl-Ui  1  they  sometimes  disagreed  in  their  sentiments, 

tion  m  that  they  did  not  act,  or  write  in  a  combina- 

latio^wS  Tf  ’  ^  nr  'i!"  ? ®  impeaches  the  truth  of  the  re ve- 

dence  which  depends  noton  any  external  evi- 

prove  what  is  •  ’  will  venture  to  affimi,  that  if  any  one  could 

them  ^aapossible  to  be  proved,  because  it  is  not  true,  that 

there  are  errors  m  geography,  chronology,  and  philosophy,  in  every 


216 


Jenyns's  Internal  Jiividence 


page  of  the  Bible ;  that  the  prophecies  deli\  ered  are  all  but 

fortunate  guesses,  or  artful  applications,  and  miracles  there 
recorded  no  better  than  legendary  tales :  if  any  ® 
that  these  books  were  never  written  by  their 
but  were  posterior  impositions  on  illiterate  and  credulous  ages . 
these  wonderful  disciveries  would  prove  no  more  than  this  that 
God,  for  reasons  to  us  unknown,  has  thought  proper  to 
revelation  by  him  communicated  to  mankind  ^  he  mixed  with 
their  ignorance,  and  corrupted  by  ^^ir  frauds  from  ite  ejhest 
infancy,  in  the  same  manner  in  which  he  has  visibly  P^^^tted 

be  mixed  and  corrupted  from  that  period  to  the  artuallv 

in  these  books  a  religion  superior  to  all  human  imagination  ac  ually 

exists,  it  is  of  no  consequence  to  the  proof  ^  ^ 

what  means  it  was  there  introduced,  or 'mth  what  human  er 
and  imperfections  it  is  blended.  A  diamond,  though  found  m  a  bed 
of  mud,  is  still  a  diamond,  nor  can  the  dirt,  which  surrounds  it, 

depreciate  its  value  or  destroy  its  lustre,  in 

To  some  speculative  and  refined  observers  it  has  ^PP^^^ed  i 
credible,  that  a  wise  and  benevolent  Creator  should  have  consP- 
tuted  a  world  upon  one  plan,  and  a  religion  for  it  on  anoAer ,  that  ■ 
is,  that  he  should  have  revealed  a  religion  to  “^’^hind,  which  not 
only  contradicts  the  principal  passions  and  incdinations  w 
has  implanted  in  their  natures,  but  is  incompatible  with  the  whole 
economy  of  that  world  which  he  has  created,  and  in  to  the 

thought  proper  to  place  them.  This,  say  they,  with  r  g  i  _ 
ChriStianhs  Varently  the  case :  the  love  of  power.  h^or. 

and  fame,  are  the  great  incitements  to  generous 

actions;  yet  by  this  institution  are  all  these  depreciated  and  dis 
coui-aged  Government  is  essential  to  the  nature  of  man,  and  t^an- 

not  be  managed  without  certain  degrees  of  violen  ,  cannot 

and  imposition;  yet  are  all  these  strictly  forbid.  N  ,ipqola 

subsist  without  ivars,  nor  war  be  carried  on  wit^o^^/^.^l^vSest 
tion,  and  murder ;  yet  are  these  prohibited  . ,  a  .  a- 

threats.  The  nonresistance  of  evil  must  sul^ect  individu 
tinual  oppressions,  and  leave  nations  a  defencele  p  ^  ,  . 

enemies ;  yet  is  this  recommended.  Perpetual  .P^^f  in' 

suits  and  injuries  must  every  day  provoke  new  .fXaSl 

juries;  yetis  this  enjoined.  A  neglect  of  we  eat  and  dunk  and 
wear,  must  put  an  end  to  all  commerce,  oufactures,  and  mdu^^^^^^ 
yet  is  this  required.  In  short,  were  these  P^^'^^P-  -i  chanee/ 
obeyed,  the  disposition  of  all  human  affairs  must  be 
and  the  business  of  the  world,  constituted  f  now  is  could  not  go 
on.  To  all  this  I  answer,  that  such  indeed  is  the  Chnstian  re 
tion,  though  some  of  its  advocates  may  perhaps  ^  it  as 

it,  and  such  it  is  constantly  declared  to  be  by  him  who  ^ve 
v^ell  as  by  those,  who  published  it  under  his 

Z  these  L  says,“If  ye  were  of  tre  chisS 

his  own;  but  because  ye  are  not  of  th® J^'orld,  but  I  h 
you  out  of  the  world,  therefore  the  world  hateth  you.  ^ohn  xx .  • 

To  the  Jews  he  declares,  “Ye  are  of  this  world ;  I  am  not  of  ttii. 


of  Christianity,  217 

world.”  (John  \dii.  23.)  St.  Paul  writes  to  the  Romans,  “Be  not  con- 
formed  to  this  world,”  (Rom.  xii.  2) ;  and  to  the  Corinthians,  “  We 
speak  not  the  wisdom  of  this  world.”  (Cor.  ii.  6.)  St.  James  savs 
‘  Know  ye  not  that  the  friendship  of  the  world  is  enmity  with  God  ? 
whosoever  therefore  will  be  a  friend  of  the  world  is  the  enemy  of 
God.  (Jam.  ly.  4.)  This  irreconcilable  disagreement  between 
Christianity  and  the  world  is  announced  in  numberless  other  places 
m  the  New  Testament,  a.nd  indeed  by  the  whole  tenor  of  those 
writings.  These  are  plain  declarations,  which,  in  spite  of  all  the 
evasions  of  those  good  managers,  who  choose  to  take  a  little  of  this 
world  in  their  way  to  heaven,  stand  fixed  and  immovable  against 
ail  their  arguments  drawn  from  public  benefit  and  pretended  neces- 
sity,  and  must  ever  forbid  any  reconciliation  between  the  pursuits 
ot  this  world  and  the  Christian  institution:  but  they,  who  reject  it 
on  this  account,  enter  not  into  the  sublime  spirit  of  this  religion 
whicli  IS  riot  a  code  of  precise  laws  designed  for  the  well  ordering 
society  adapted  to  the  ends  of  worldly  convenience,  and  amenable 
to  the  tribunal  of  human  prudence;  but  a  divine  lesson  of  purity 
and  periection,  so  far  superior  to  the  low  considerations  of  conquest 
government,  and  commerce,  that  it  takes  no  more  notice  of  them’ 
than  of  the  battles  of  game-cocks,  the  policy  of  bees,  or  the  indus- 
try  of  ants :  they  recollect  not  what  is  the  first  and  principal  object 
of  this  institution ;  that  is  not,  as  has  been  often  repeated,  to  make 
us  happy,  or  even  virtuous  in  the  present  life,  for  the  sake  of  aug¬ 
menting  our  happiness  here,  but  to  conduct  us  through  a  state  of 
dangere  and  sufferings,  of  sin  and  temptation,  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  qualify  us  for  the  enjoyment  of  happiness  hereafter.  All  other 
irutitutions  of  religion  and  morals  were  made  for  the  world,  but  the 
characteristic  of  this  is  to  be  against  it ;  and  therefore  the  merits  of 
Christian  doctrines  are  not  to  be  weighed  in  the  scales  of  public 
utility,  like  those  of  moral  precepts,  because  worldly  utility  is  not 
their  end.  If  Christ  and  his  apostles  had  pretended,  that  the  reli¬ 
gion  which  they  preached  would  advance  the  power,  wealth,  and 
prosperity  of  nations,  or  of  men,  they  wwld  have  deserved  but 
little  credit;  but  they  constptly  profess  the  contrary,  and  every- 
w  ere  decmre,  that  their  reli^on  is  adverse  to  the  world,  and  all  its 
pursuits.  Christ  says,  speaking  of  his  disciples,  “They  are  not  of 
the  W’orld,  even  as  I  am  not  of  the  world.”  (John  xvii.  16.)  It  can 
therefore  be  no  imputation  on  this  religion,  or  on  any  of  its  precepts, 
hat  they  tend  not  to  an  end  which  their  author  professedly  disclaims  • 
nor  can  it  surely  be  deemed  a  defect,  that  it  is  adverse  to  the  vain 
pursuits  of  this  world;  for  so  are  reason,  wisdom,  and  experience, 
they  all  teach  us  the  same  lesson,  they  all  demonstrate  to  us  every 
hay,  that  these  are  begun  on  false  hopes,  carried  on  with  disquie- 
S’  disappointment.  This  professed  incompatibility 

with  the  little,  wretched,  and  iniquitous  business  of  the  world,  is 

nn  nth  H  ®  religion,  that,  was  there 

I  would  be 

The  great  plan  and  benevolent  design  of  this 
oispenytion  is  plainly  this;  to  enlighten  the  minds,  purify  the  reh- 


218  Jenyns^s  Internal  Evidence 

cion,  and  amend  the  morals  of  mankind  in  general,  and  to  select  the 
most  meritorious  of  them  to  be  successively  transplanted  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven :  which  gracious  offer  is  imparpally  tendered  to 
all,  who  by  perseverance  in  meekness,  patience,  pietyp  charity,  an 
a  detachment  from  the  world,  are  willing  to  qualify  themselves  for 
this  holy  and  happy  society.  Was  this  universally  accepted,  and 
did  everv  man  observe  strictly  every  precept  of  the  Gospel,  the  face  ol 
human  affairs  and  the  economy  of  the  world  would  indeed  be  great  y 
changed ;  but  surely  they  would  be  changed  for  the  better ;  and 
we  should  enjoy  much  more  happiness,  even  here,  than  at  present : 
for  we  must  not  forget,  that  evils  are  by  it  forbid  as  well  as  resist¬ 
ance;  injuries  as  well  as  revenge;  all  unwillingness  to  diffuse  the 
eniovments  of  life,  as  well  as  solicitude  to  acquire  them ;  all  obsta¬ 
cle  to  ambition,  as  well  as  ambition  itself;  and  therefore  all  con¬ 
tentions  for  power  and  interest  would  be  at  an  end ;  and  the  world 
would  go  on  much  more  happily  than  it  now  does.  But  this  uni 
versal  acceptance  of  such  an  offer  was  never  expected 
so  depraved  and  imperfect  a  creature  as  man,  and  thermore  could 
never  have  been  any  part  of  the  design :  for  it  was  foreknown 
and  foretold  by  him  who  made  it,  that  few,  very  few  would 
accept  it  on  these  terms.  He  says,  “  Strait  is  the  gate,  and  narrow  is 
the  way  which  leadeth  unto  life,  and  few  there  be  that  hnd  it. 
(Matt.vii.l4.)  Accordingly  we  see,  that  very  few  are  prevailed  on 
by  the  hopes  of  future  happiness,  to  relinquish  the  pursuit  of  present 
pleasures  or  interests,  and  therefore  these  pursuits  are  little  inter¬ 
rupted  by  the  secession  of  so  inconsiderable  a  number.  As  the 
natural  world  subsists  by  the  struggles  of  the  same  elements,  so 
does  the  moral  by  the  contentions  of  the  same  passions,  as  from  tae 
beginning.  The  generality  of  mankind  are  actuated  by  the  same 
motives ;  fight,  scuffle,  and.  scramble  for  power,  riches,  and  plea¬ 
sures  with  the  same  eagerness :  all  occupations  and  professions  are 
exercised  with  the  same  alacrity,  and  there  are  soldiers,  lawyers, 
statesmen,  patriots,  and  politicians,  just  as  if  Christianity  had  never 
existed.  Thus,  we  see  this  wonderful  dispensation  has  answered  all 
the  purposes  for  which  it  was  intended :  it  has  enlightened  the 
minds,  purified  the  religion,  and  amended  the  morals  of  mankind  ; 
and,  without  subverting  the  constitution,  policy,  or  business  of  the 
world,  opened  a  gate,  though  a  strait  one,  through  which  all,  who 
are  wise  enough  to  choose  it,  and  good  enough  to  be  fit  for  it,  may 
find  an  entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  ^  ^  . 

Others  have  said,  that  if  this  revelation  had  really  been  from  God, 
his  infinite  pow'er  and  goodness  could  never  have  suffered  it  to  have 
been  so  soon  perverted  from  its  original  purity,  to  have  continued 
in  a  state  of  corruption  through  the  course  of  so  many  ages,  and  at 
last  to  have  proved  so  ineffectual  to  the  reformation  of  mankind. 
To  these  I  answer,  that  all  this,  on  examination,  will  he  found  in¬ 
evitable,  from  the  nature  of  all  revelations  communicated  to  so  im¬ 
perfect  a  creature  as  man,  and  from  circumstances  peculiar  to  the 
rise  and  progress  of  the  Christian  in  particular:  for  when  ffl>s  was 
first  preached  to  the  gentile  nations,  though  they  were  not  able  to 


of  Christianity.  219 

withstand  the  force  of  its  evidence,  and  therefore  received  it;  yet 
they  could  not  be  prevailed  on  to  relinquish  their  old  superstitions, 
and  former  opinions,  but  chose  rather  to  incorporate  them  with  it . 
by  yi  hich  means  it  was  necessarily  mixed  wdth  their  ignorance,  and 
their  learning;  by  both  which  it  was- equally  injured.  The  people 
defaced  its  worship  by  blending  it  with  their  idolatrous  ceremonies, 
and  the  philosophers  corrupted  its  doctrines  by  weaving  them  up 
wdth  the  notions  of  the  Gnostics,  Mystics,  and  Manichaeans,  the  pre¬ 
vailing  systems  of  those  times.  By  degrees  its  irresistible  excellence 
gained  over  princes,  potentates,  and  conquerors  to  its  interests,  and 
it  w  as  supported  by  their  patronage :  but  that  patronage  soon  en¬ 
gaged  it  in  their  policies  and  contests,  and  destroyed  that  ex¬ 
cellence  by  which  it  had  been  acquired.  At  length  the  meek  and 
humble  professors  of  the  Gospel  enslaved  these  princes,  and  con¬ 
quered  these  conquerors,  their  patrons,  and  erected  for  themselves 
such  a  stupendous  fabric  of  wealth  and  pow'er,  as  the  world  had 
never  seen :  they  then  propagated  their  religion  by  the  same 
methods  Iw  wfoich  it  had  been  persecuted ;  nations  were  converted 
by  fire  and  sword,  and  the  vanquished  were  baptized  with  daggers 
at  their  throats.  All  these  events  we  see  proceed  from  a  chain  of 
causes  and  consequences,  wfoich  could  not  have  been  broken  with¬ 
out  changing  the  established  course  of  things  by  a  constant  series 
of  miracles,  or  a  total  alteration  of  human  nature :  whilst  that  con¬ 
tinues  as  it  is,  the  purest  religion  must  be  corrupted  by  a  conjunc¬ 
tion  with  power  and  riches,  and  it  will  also  then  appear  to  be  much 
more  corrupted  than  it  really  is :  because  many  are  inclined  to 
think,  that  every  deviation  from  its  primitive  state  is  a  corruption: 
Christianity  was  at  first  preached  by  the  poor  and  mean,  in  holes 
and  caverns,  under  the  iron  rod  of  persecution;  and  therefore  many 
absurdly  conclude,  that  any  degree  of  wealth  or  power  in  its  minis¬ 
ters,  or  of  magnificence  in  its  worship,  are  corruptions  inconsistent 
with  the  genuine  simplicity  of  its  original  state :  they  are  offended, 
that  modem  bishops  should  possess  titles,  palaces,  revenues,  and 
coaches,  w’hen  it  is  notorious,  that  their  predecessors  the  apostles 
were  despicable  wanderers,  wtithout  houses,  or  money,  and  walked 
on  foot.  The  apostles  indeed  lived  in  a  state  of  poverty  and  per 
secution  attendant  on  their  particular  situation,  and  the  W'ork  which 
they  had  undertaken :  this  was  their  misfortune,  but  no  part  of  their 
religion,  and  therefore  it  can  be  no  more  incumbent  on  their  succes- 
sore  to  imitate  their  poverty  and  meanness,  than  to  be  whipped,  im¬ 
prisoned,  and  put  to  death,  in  compliance  with  their  example.  These 
are  all  but  the  suggestions  of  envy  and  malevolence,  but  no  objec¬ 
tions  to  these  fortunate  alterations  in  Christianity  and  its  professors ; 
W'hich,  if  not  abused  to  the  purposes  of  tyranny  and  superstition, 
are  in  fact  no  more  than  the  necessary  and  proper  effects  of  its  more 
prosperous  situation.  When  a  poor  man  grows  rich,  or  a  servant 
becomes  a  master,  they  should  take  care  that  their  exaltation  prompts 
them  not  to  be  unjust  or  insolent;  but  surely  it  is  not  requisite  or 
right,  that  their  behavior  and  mode  of  living  should  be  exactly  tlie 
same,  when  their  situation  is  altered.  How  for  this  institution  has 


220  Jenyns's  Internal  Evidence 

been  effectual  to  the  reformation  of  mankind,  it  is  not  easy  now  to 
ascertain,  because  the  enormities  which  prevailed  before  the  ap¬ 
pearance  of  it  are  by  time  so  far  removed  from  our  sight,  lhat  they 
are  scarcely  visible ;  but  those  of  the  most  gigantic  size  still  remain 
in  the  records  of  history,  as  monuments  of  the  rest  Wars  in  those 
ages  were  carried  on  with  a  ferocity  and  cruelty  unknowm  to  the 
present:  whole  cities  and  nations  were  extirpated  by  fire  and 
sword ;  and  thousands  of  the  vanquished  were  crucified  and  im¬ 
paled  for  having  endeavored  only  to  defend  themselves  and  their 
country.  The  lives  of  new-born  infants  were  then  entirely  at  the 
disposal  of  their  parents,  who  were  at  liberty  to  bring  them  up,  or 
to  expose  them  to  perish  by  cold  and  hunger,  or  to  be  devoured  1^ 
birds  and  beasts ;  and  this  was  frequently  practised  without  puni^- 
ment,  and  even  without  censure.  Gladiators  were  employed  by 
hundreds  to  cut  one  another  to  pieces  in  public  theatres  for  the 
diversion  of  the  most  polite  assemblies ;  and  though  these  combatants 
at  first  consisted  of  criminals  only,  by  degrees  men  of  the  highest 
rank,  and  even  ladies  of  the  most  illustrious  families,  enrolled  them¬ 
selves  in  this  honorable  list.  On  many  occasions  human  sacrifices 
were  ordained ;  and  at  the  funerals  of  rich  and  eminent  persons, 
great  numbers  of  the  slaves  were  murdered  as  victims  pleasing  to 
their  departed  spirits.  The  most  infamous  obscenities  were  made 
part  of  their  religious  worship,  and  the  most  unnatural  lusts  pub¬ 
licly  avowed,  and  celebrated  by  their  most  admired  poets.  At 
the  approach  of  Christianity  all  these  horrid  abominations  vanished  ; 
and  amongst  those  who  first  embraced  it,  scarce  a  single  vice  was 
to  be  found.  To  such  an  amazing  degree  of  piety,  charity,  tem¬ 
perance,  patience,  and  resignation  were  the  primitive  converts  ex¬ 
alted,  that  they  seem  literally  to  have  been  regenerated,  and  puri¬ 
fied  from  all  the  imperfections  of  hxunan  nature;  and  to  have  pur¬ 
sued  such  a  constant  and  uniform  course  of  devotion,  innocence, 
and  virtue,  as,  in  the  present  times,  it  is  almost  as  difficult  for  us  to 
conceive  as  to  imitate.  If  it  is  asked,  why  should  not  the  belief  of 
the  same  religion  now  produce  the  same  effects?  The  answer  is 
short,  because  it  is  not  believed.  The  most  sovereign  medicine  can 
perform  no  cure,  if  the  patient  will  not  be  persuaded  to  take  it. 
Yet,  notwithstanding  all  impediments,  it  has  certainly  done  a  great 
deal  towards  diminishing  the  vices,  and  correcting  the  dispositions 
of  mankind ;  and  was  it  universally  adopted  in  belief  and  practice, 
would  totally  eradicate  both  sin  and  punishment.  But  this  was 
never  expected,  or  designed,  or  possible,  because,  if  their  existence 
did  not  arise  from  some  necessity  to  us  unloiown,  they  never  would 
have  been  permitted  to  exist  at  all,  and,  therefore,  they  can  no  more 
be  extirpated,  than  they  could  have  been  prevented.  For  this 
would  certainly  be  incompatible  with  the  frame  and  constitution  of 
this  world,  and  in  all  probability  with  that  of  another.  And  this,  I 
think,  well  accounts  for  that  reserve  and  obscurity  with  which  this 
religion  was  at  first  promulgated,  and  that  want  of  irresistible  evi¬ 
dence  of  its  truth,  by  which  it  might  possibly  have  been  enforced. 
Christ  says  to  his  disciples,  “To  you  it  is  given  to  know  the  mystery 


of  Christianity.  221 

of  the  kingdom  of  God ;  but  unto  them  that  are  without,  all  these 
things  are  done  in  parables ;  that  seeing  they  may  see,  and  not  per¬ 
ceive,  and  hearing  they  may  hear,  and  not  understand ;  lest  at  any 
time  they  should  be  converted,  and  their  sins  should  be  forgiven 
them.”  (Mark  iv.  11,  12.)  That  is,  to  you  by  peculiar  favor  it  is 
given  to  know  and  understand  the  doctrines  of  my  religion,  and  by 
that  means  to  qualify  yourselves  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  but  to 
the  multitude  without,  that  is  to  all  mankind  in  general,  this  indul¬ 
gence  cannot  be  extended:  because  that  all  men  should  be  ex¬ 
empted  from  sin  and  punishment  is  utterly  repugnant  to  the  univer¬ 
sal  system,  and  that  constitution  of  things,  which  Infinite  Wisdom 
has  thought  proper  to  adopt. 

Objections  have  likewise  been  raised  to  the  divine  authority  of 
this  religion  from  tl^e  incredibility  of  some  of  its  doctrines,  particu- 
la^  of  those  concerning  the  Trinity,  and  atonement  for  sin  by  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  Christ ;  the  one  contradicting  all  the  prin¬ 
ciples  of  human  reason,  and  the  other  all  our  ideas  of  divine 
justice.  To  these  objections  I  shall  only  say,  that  no  arguments, 
founded  on  principles  which  we  cannot  comprehend,  can  possibly 
disprove  a  proposition  already  proved  on  principles  which  we  do 
understand  ;  and,  therefore,  that  on  this  subject  they  ought  not  to 
be  attended  to.  That  three  Beings  should  be  one  Being,  is  a  propo¬ 
sition  which  certainly  contradicts  reason,  that  is,  our  reason,  but  it 
does  not  from  thence  follow,  that  it  cannot  be  true ;  for  there  are 
many  propositions  which  contradict  our  reason,  and  yet  are  demon¬ 
strably  true.  One  is  the  very  first  principle  of  all  religion,  the  being 
of  a  God ;  for  that  any  thing  should  exist  without  a  cause,  or  that 
any  thing  should  be  the  cause  of  its  own  existence,  are  propositions 
equally  contradictory  to  our  reason ;  yet  one  of  them  must  be  true, 
or  nothing  could  ever  have  existed.  In  like  manner  the  overruling 
grace  of  the  Creator,  and  the  free-will  of  his  creatures,  his  certain 
foreknowledge  of  future  events,  and  the  uncertain  contingency  of 
those  events,  are,  to  our  apprehensions,  absolute  contradictions  to 
each  other ;  and  yet  the  truth  of  every  one  of  these  is  demonstrable 
from  Scripture,  reason,  and  experience.  All  these  difficulties  arise 
from  our  imagining,  that  the  mode  of  existence  of  all  beings  must 
be  similar  to  our  own;  that  is,  that  they  must  all  exist  in  time  and 
space ;  and  hence  proceeds  our  embarrassment  on  this  subject.  We 
know,  that  no  two  beings,  with  whose  mode  of  existence  we  are 
acquainted,  can  exist  in  the  same  point  of  time  in  the  same  point  of 
space,  and  that  therefore  they  cannot  be  one  ;  but  how  far  beings, 
whose  mode  of  existence  bears  no  relation  to  time  or  space,  may 
be  united,  we  cannot  comprehend ;  and  therefore  the  possibility  of 
such  a  union  we  cannot  positively  deny.  In  like  manner  our  rea¬ 
son  informs  us,  that  the  punishment  of  the  innocent,  instead  of  the 
guilty,  is  diametrically  opposite  to  justice,  rectitude,  and  all  pre¬ 
tensions  to  utility;  but  we  should  also  remember,  that  the  short 
line  of  our  reason  cannot  reach  to  the  bottom  of  this<iuestion;  it 
cannot  inform  iis  by  what  means  either  guilt  or  punishment  ever 
gamed  a  place  in  tne  works  of  a  Creator  infinitely  good  and  power- 
T  3 


/ 


222  Jenyns*s  Internal  Evidence 

ful,  whose  goodness  must  have  induced  him,  and  whose  power  must 
have  enabled  him  to  exclude  them.  It  cannot  assure  us,  that  some 
sufferings  of  individuals  are  not  necessary  to  the  happiness  and 
well-being  of  the  whole.  It  cannot  convince  us,  that  they  do  not 
actually  arise  from  this  necessity,  or  that,  for  this  cause,  they  may 
not  be  required  of  us,  and  levied  like  a  tax  for  the  public  benefit ; 
or  that  this  tax  may  not  be  pu  d  by  one  being,  as  w'ell  as  another; 
and,  therefore,  if  voluntarily  offered,  be  justly  accepted  from  the 
innocent  instead  of  the  guilty.  Of  all  these  circumstances  w'e  are 
totally  ignorant ;  nor  can  our  reason  afford  us  any  information,  and, 
therefore,  we  are  not  able  to  assert,  that  this  measure  is  contrary 
to  justice,  or  void  of  utility.  For,  unless  we  could  first  resolve  that 
great  question,  whence  came  evil  ?  we  can  decide  nothing  on  the 
dispensations  of  Providence ;  because  they  must  necessarily  be  con¬ 
nected  with  that  undiscoverable  principle ;  and,  as  we  know  not 
the  root  of  the  disease,  we  cannot  judge  of  what  is,  or  is  not,  a  prop¬ 
er  and  effectual  remedy.  It  is  remarkable,  that,  notwithstanding 
all  the  seeming  absurdities  of  this  doctrine,  there  is  one  circumstance 
much  in  its  favor ;  which  is,  that  it  has  been  universally  adopted  in 
all  ages,  as  far  as  history  can  carry  us  back  in  our  inquiries  to  the 
earliest  times ;  in  which  we  find  all  nations,  civilized  and  barbarous, 
however  differing  in  all  other  religious  opinions,  agreeing  alone  in 
the  expediency  of  appeasing  their  offended  deities  by  sacrifices, 
that  is,  by  the  vicarious  sufferings  of  men  or  other  animals.  This 
notion  could  never  have  been  derived  from  reason,  because  it  di- 
,  rectly  contradicts  it ;  nor  from  ignorance,  because  ignorance  could 
never  have  contrived  so  unaccountable  an  expedient,  nor  have 
been  uniform  in  all  ages  and  countries  in  any  opinion  whatsoever ; 
nor  from  the  artifice  of  kings  or  priests,  in  order  to  acquire  dominion 
over  the  people,  because  it  seems  not  adapted  to  this  end,  and  we 
find  it  implanted  in  tlie  minds  of  the  most  remote  savages  at  this 
day  discovered,  who  have  neither  kings  nor  priests,  artifice  nor 
dominion  amongst  them.  It  must,  therefore,  be  derived  from  natu¬ 
ral  instinct,  or  supernatural  revelation,  both  which  are  equally  the 
operations  of  Divine  power.  It  may  be  further  urged,  that  however 
true  these  doctrines  may  be,  yet  it  must  be  inconsistent  wdth  the 
justice  and  goodness  of  the  Creator  to  require  from  his  creatures 
the  belief  of  propositions  which  contradict,  or  are  above  the  reach 
of  that  reason,  which  he  has  thought  proper  to  bestow  upon  them. 
To  this  I  answer,  that  genuine  Christianity  requires  no  such  belief. 
It  has  discovered  to  us  many  important  truths,  with  which  we  were 
before  entirely  unacquainted ;  and  amongst  them  are  these,  that 
three  Beings  are  someway  united  in  the  Divine  essence,  and  that 
God  will  accept  of  the  suiferings  of  Christ  as  an  atonement  for  the 
sins  of  mankind.  These,  considered  as  declarations  of  facts  only, 
neither  contradict,  nor  are  above  the  reach  of  human  reason.  The 
first  is  a  proposition  as  plain,  as  that  three  equilateral  lines  compose 
one  triangle ;  the  other  is  as  intelligible,  as  that  one  man  should  dis¬ 
charge  the  debts  of  another.  In  what  manner  this  union  is  formed, 
or  why  God  accepts  these  vicarious  punishments,  or  to  what  pur- 


of  Christianity.  223 

j»ses  they  may  be  subservient,  it  informs  us  not,  because  no  informa¬ 
tion  could  enable  us  to  comprehend  these  mysteries,  and  therefore 
it  does  not  require  that  we  should  know  or  believe  any  thing  about 
them.  The  truth  of  these  doctrines  must  rest  entirely  on  the 
authority  of  those  who  taught  them ;  but  then  Ave  should  reflect, 
that  those  were  the  same  persons  who  taught  us  a  system  of  religion 
more  sublime,  and  of  ethics  more  perfect,  than  any  which  our  facul¬ 
ties  were  ever  able  to  discover;  but  which,  when  discovered,  are 
exactly  consonant  to  our  reason ;  and  that,  therefore,  we  should  not 
hastily  reject  those  informations  w’hich  they  have  vouchsafed  to 
give  us,  of  which  our  reason  is  not  a  competent  judge.  If  an  able 
mathematician  proves  to  us  the  truth  of  several  propositions,  by 
demonstrations  which  we  understand,  we  hesitate  not  on  his  author¬ 
ity  to  assent  to  others,  the  process  of  whose  proofs  we  are  not  able 
to  follow ;  why,  therefore,  should  we  refuse  that  credit  to  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  which  w'e  think  reasonable  to  give  to  one  another  ? 

Many  have  objected  to  the  whole  scheme  of  this  revelation  as 
partial,  fluctuating,  indeterminate,  unjust,  and  unworthy  of  an  om¬ 
niscient  and  omnipotent  author,  who  cannot  be  supposed  to  have 
favored  particular  persons,  countries,  and  times,  with  this  divine 
communication,  while  others,  no  less  meritorious,  have  been  alto¬ 
gether  excluded  from  its  benefits ;  nor  to  have  changed  and  counter¬ 
acted  his  own  designs ;  that  is,  to  have  formed  mankind  able  and 
disposed  to  render  themselves  miserable  by  their  own  wickedness, 
and  then  to  have  contrived  so  strange  an  expedient  to  restore  them 
to  that  happiness,  w'hich  thejr  need  never  have  been  permitted  to 
forfeit;  and  this  to  be  brougnt  about  by  the  unnecessary  interposi¬ 
tion  of  a  mediator.  To  all  this  I  shall  only  say,  that  however  unac¬ 
countable  this  may  appear  to  us,  who  see  but  as  small  a  part  of  the 
Christian  as  of  the  universal  plan  of  creation,  they  are  both  in  re¬ 
gard  to  all  these  circumstances  exactly  analogous  to  each  other.  In 
all  the  dispensations  of  Providence,  with  which  we  are  acquainted, 
benefits  are  distributed  in  a  similar  manner;  health  and  strength, 
sense  and  science,  wealth  and  power,  are  all  bestowed  on  individ¬ 
uals  and  communities  in  different  degrees  and  at  different  times. 
The  whole  economy  of  this  world  consists  of  evils  and  remedies ; 
and  these,  for  the  most  part,  administered  by  the  instrumentality  of 
intermediate  agents.  God  has  permitted  us  to  plunge  ourselves  into 
poverty,  distress,  and  misery,  by  our  own  vices,  and  has  afforded  us 
the  advice,  instructions,  and  examples  of  others,  to  deter  or  extricate 
us  from  these  calamities.  He  has  formed  us  subject  to  innumerable 
diseases,  and  he  has  bestowed  on  us  a  variety  of  remedies.  He  has 
made  us  liable  to  hunger,  thirst,  and  nakedness,  and  he  supplies  us 
with  food,  drink,  and  clothing,  usually  by  the  administration  of 
others.  He  has  created  poisons,  and  he  has  provided  antidotes.  He 
has  ordained  the  winters’s  cold  to  cure  the  pestilential  heats  of  the 
summer,  and  the  summer’s  sunshine  to  dry  up  the  inundations  of  the 
winter.  Why  the  constitution  of  nature  is  so  formed,  why  all  the 
visible  dispensations  of  Providence  are  such,  and  why  such  is  the 
Christian  dispensation  also,  we  know  not,  nor  have  faculties  to  com- 


224  Jenyns's  Internal  Evidence 

prehend.  God  might  certainly  have  made  the  material  world  a 
system  of  perfect  Beauty  and  regularity,  without  evils,  and  without 
remedies ;  and  the  Christian  dispensation  a  scheme  only  of  moral 
virtue,  productive  of  happiness,  without  the  intervention  of  any 
atonement  or  mediation.  He  might  have  exempted  our  bodies  from 
all  diseases,  and  our  minds  from  all  depravity,  and  we  should  then 
have  stood  in  no  need  of  medicines  to  restore  us  to  health,  or  ex¬ 
pedients  to  reconcile  us  to  his  favor.  It  seems  indeed  to  our  igno¬ 
rance,  that  this  would  have  been  more  consistent  with  justice  and 
reason ;  but  his  infinite  wisdom  has  decided  in  another  manner,  and 
formed  the  systems,  both  of  nature  and  Christianity,  on  other  prin¬ 
ciples,  and  these  so  exactly  similar,  that  we  have  cause  to  conclude, 
that  they  both  must  proceed  from  the  same  source  of  Divine  power 
and  wisdom,  however  inconsistent  with  our  reason  they  may  appear. 
Reason  is  undoubtedly  our  surest  guide  in  all  matters,  which  lie 
within  the  narrow  circle  of  her  intelligence.  On  the  subject  of 
revelation  her  province  is  only  to  examine  into  its  authority,  and 
when  that  is  once  proved,  she  has  no  more  to  do,  but  to  acquiesce 
in  its  doctrines,  and,  therefore,  is  never  so  ill  employed,  as  when 
she  pretends  to  accommodate  them  to  her  own  ideas  of  rectitude 
and  truth.  God,  says  this  self-sufficient  teacher,  is  perfectly  wise 
just,  and  good ;  and  what  is  the  inference  ?  That  all  his  dispensa¬ 
tions  must  be  conformable  to  our  notions  of  perfect  wisdom,  justice, 
and  goodness ;  but  it  should  first  be  proved,  that  man  is  as  perfec* 
and  as  wise  as  his  Creator,  or  this  consequence  will  by  no  means 
follow ;  but  rather  the  reverse,  that  is,  that  the  dispensations  6f  a 
perfect  and  all-wise  Being  must  probably  appear  unreasonable,  and 
perhaps  unjust,  to  a  being  imperfect  and  ignorant ;  and,  therefore, 
their  seeming  impossibility  may  be  a  mark  of  their  truth,  and,  in 
some  measure,  justify  that  pious  rant  of  a  mad  enthusiast,  “  Credo, 
quia  impossibile.”  Nor  is  it  the  least  surprising,  that  we  are  not 
able  to  understand  the  spiritual  dispensations  of  the  Almighty,  when 
his  material  works  are  to  us  no  less  incomprehensible.  Our  reason 
can  afford  us  no  insight  into  those  great  properties  of  matter,  gravi¬ 
tation,  attraction,  elasticity,  and  electricity,  nor  even  into  the  essence 
of  matter  itself.  Can  reason  teach  us  how  the  sun’s  luminous  orb 
can  fill  a  circle,  whose  diameter  contains  many  millions  of  miles, 
with  a  constant  inundation  of  successive  rays  during  thousands  of 
years,  without  any  perceivable  diminution  of  that  body,  from 
whence  they  are  continually  poured,  or  any  augmentation  of  those 
bodies  on  which  they  fall,  and  by  which  they  are  constantly  ab¬ 
sorbed  ?  Can  reason  tell  us  how  those  rays,  darted  -with  a  velocity 
greater  than  that  of  a  cannon  ball,  can  strike  the  tenderest  organs 
of  the  human  frame  without  inflicting  any  degree  of  pain,  or  by 
what  means  this  percussion  only  can  convey  the  forms  of  distant 
objects  to  an  immaterial  mind  ?  or  how  any  union  can  be  formed 
between  material  and  immaterial  essences  ?  or  how  the  wounds  of 
the  body  can  give  pain  to  the  soul,  or  the  anxiety  of  the  soul  can 
emaciate  and  destroy  the  body  ?  That  all  these  things  are  so,  we 
have  visible  and  indisputable  demonstrabon ;  but  how  they  can  be 


of  Christianity.  225 

so,  is  to  us  as  mcomprehensible  as  the  most  abstruse  mysteries  of 
revelation  can  possibly  be.  In  short,  we  see  so  small  a  part  -of  the 
great  whole,  we  know  so  little  of  the  relation,  which  the  present 
hfe  bears  to  pre-existent  and  future  states ;  we  can  conceive  so  little 
of  the  nature  of  God,  and  his  attributes,  or  mode  of  existence ;  we 
can  comprehend  so  little  of  the  material,  and  so  much  less  of  the 
moral  plan  on  which  the  universe  is  constituted,  or  on  what  principle 
it  proceeds,  that,  if  a  revelation  from  such  a  Being,  on  such  subjects 
was  in  every  part  familiar  to  our  understandings,  and  consonant  to 
our  reason,  we  should  have  ^eat  cause  to  suspect  its  Divine  au¬ 
thority  ;  and,  therefore,  had  this  revelation  been  less  incomprehen¬ 
sible,  it  would  certainly  have  been  more  incredible. 

But  I  shall  not  enter  farther  into  the  consideration  of  these  ab¬ 
struse  and  difficult  speculations,  because  the  discussion  of  them 
would  render  this  short  essay  too  tedious  and  laborious  a  task  for 
the  perusal  of  them,  for  whom  it  was  principally  intended ;  which 
are  all  those  busy  or  idle  persons,  whose  time  and  thoughts  are 
wholly  engrossed  by  the  pursuits  of  business  or  pleasure,  ambition 
or  luxury,  who  know  nothing  of  this  religion,  except  what  they 
have  accidentally  picked  up  by  desultory  conversation  or  superficial 
reading,  and  have  thence  determined  with  themselves,  that  a  pre¬ 
tended  revelation,  founded  on  so  strange  and  improbable  a  story,  so 
contradictory  to  reason,  so  adverse  to  the  world  and  all  its  occupa¬ 
tions,  so  incredible  in  its  doctrines,  and  in  its  precepts  so  impractica¬ 
ble,  can  be  nothing  more  than  the  imposition  of  priestcraft  upon 
ignorant  and  illiterate  ages,  and  artfully  continued  as  an  engine 
well  adapted  to  awe  and  govern  the  superstitious  vulgar.  To  talk 
to  such  about  the  Christian  religion  is  to  converse  with  the  deaf 
concerning  music,  or  with  the  blind  on  the  beauties  of  painting. 
They  want  all  ideas  relative  to  the  subject,  and,  therefore,  can 
never  be  made  to  comprehend  it.  To  enable  them  to  do  this,  their 
minds  must  be  formed  for  these  conceptions  by  contemplation,  re¬ 
tirement,  and  abstraction  from  business  and  dissipation;  by  ill- 
health,  disappointments,  and  distresses ;  and  possibly  by  Divine  in¬ 
terposition,  or  W  enthusiasm,  which  is  usually  mistaken  for  it. 
Without  some  oi  these  preparatory  aids,  together  with  a  competent 
degree  of  learning  and  application,  it  is  impossible  that  they  can 
think  or  know,  understand  or  believe,  any  thing  about  it.  If  they 
profess  to  believe,  they  deceive  others  ;  if  they  fancy  that  they  be¬ 
lieve,  they  deceive  themselves.  I  am  ready  to  acknowledge,  that 
these  gentlemen,  as  far  as  their  information  reaches,  are  perfectly  in 
the  right ;  and  if  they  are  endued  with  good  understandings,  which 
have  been  entirely  devoted  to  the  business  or  amusements  of  the 
world,  they  can  pass  no  other  judgment,  and  must  revolt  from  the 
history  and  doctrines  of  this  religion.  “  The  preaching  Christ  cruci¬ 
fied  was  to  the  Jews  a  stumbling-block,  and  to  the  Greeks  foolish¬ 
ness,”  (1  Cor.  i.  23) ;  and  so  it  must  appear  to  all,  who,  like  them, 
judge  from  established  prejudices,  false  learning,  and  superficial 
knowledge ;  for  those  who  are  quite  unable  to  follow  the  chain  of 
Its  prophecy,  to  see  the  beauty  and  justness  of  its  moral  precepts, 


226  Jenyns’s  Internal  Evidence 

and  to  enter  into  the  wonders  of  its  dispensations,  can  form  no  other 
idea  of  this  revelation,  but  that  of  a  confused  rhapsody  of  fictions 
and  absurdities. 

If  it  is  asked,  Was  Christianity  then  intended  only  for  learned 
divines  and  profound  philosophers  ?  I  answer.  No.  It  was  at  first 
preached  by  the  illiterate,  and  received  by  the  ignorant ;  and  to 
such  are  the  practical,  which  are  the  most  necessary  parts  of  it,  suffi¬ 
ciently  intelligible ;  but  the  proofs  of  its  authority  undoubtedly  are 
not,  because  these  must  be  chiefly  drawn  from  other  parts,  of  a 
speculative  nature,  opening  to  our  inquiries  inexhaustible  discoveries 
concerning  the  nature,  attributes,  and  dispensations  of  God,  wluch 
cannot  be  understood  without  some  learning,  and  much  attention. 
From  these  the  generality  of  mankind  must  necessarily  be  excluded, 
and  must,  therefore,  trust  to  others  for  the  grounds  of  their  belief, 
if  they  believe  at  all.  And  hence,  perhaps,  it  is,  that  faith,  or  easi¬ 
ness  of  belief,  is  so  frequently,  and  so  strongly  recommended  in  the 
Gospel ;  because  if  men  require  proofs,  of  which  they  themselves 
are  incapable,  and  those  who  have  no  knowledge  on  this  important 
subject  will  not  place  some  confidence  in  those  who  have,  the 
illiterate  and  unattentive  must  ever  continue  in  a  state  of  unbelief. 
But  then  all  such  should  remember,  that  in  all  sciences,  even  in  the 
mathematics  themselves,  there  are  many  propositions,  which,  on  a 
cursory  view,  appear  to  the  most  acute  understandings  uninstructed 
in  that  science,  to  be  impossible  to  be  true,  which  yet,  on  a  closer 
examination,  are  found  to  be  truths  capable  of  the  strictest  demon¬ 
stration  ;  and  that,  therefore,  in  disquisitions  on  wdiich  w^e  cannot  deter¬ 
mine  without  much  learned  investigation,  reason  uninformed  is  by 
no  means  to  be  depended  on ;  and  from  hence  they  ought  surely  to 
conclude,  that  it  may  be  at  least  as  possible  for  them  to  be  mistaken 
in  disbelieving  this  revelation,  who  know  nothing  of  the  matter,  as 
for  those  great  masters  of  reason  and  erudition,  Grotius,  Bacon, 
Newton,  Boyle,  Locke,  Addison,  and  Lyttelton,  to  be  deceived  in 
their  belief,-  a  belief,  to  which  they  firmly  adhered  after  the  most 
diligent  and  learned  researches  into  the  authenticity  of  its  records, 
the  completion  of  the  prophecies,  the  sublimity  of  its  doctrines,  the 
purity  of  its  precepts,  and  the  arguments  of  its  adversaries  ;  a  be¬ 
lief^  which  they  have  testified  to  the  world  by  their  writings,  with¬ 
out  any  other  motive  than  their  regard  for  truth,  and  the  benefit  of 
mankind.  Should  the  few'  foregoing  pages  add  but  one  mite  to  the 
treasures  with  which  these  learned  writers  have  enriched  the 
world ;  if  they  should  be  so  fortunate  as  to  persuade  any  of  these 
minute  philosophers  to  place  some  confidence  in  these  great  opinions, 
and  to  distrust  their  own ;  if  they  should  be  able  to  convince  them, 
that,  notwithstanding  all  unfavorable  appearances,  Christianity  may 
not  be  altogether  artifice  and  error ;  if  they  should  prevail  on  them 
to  examine  it  with  some  attention,  or,  if  that  is  too  much  trouble, 
not  to  reject  it  without  any  examination  at  all ;  the  purpose  of  this 
little  work  will  be  sufficiently  answered.  Had  the  arguments  herein 
used,  and  the  new  hints  here  flung  out,  been  more  largely  discussed, 
it  might  easily  have  been  extended  to  a  more  considerable  bulk; 


of  Christianity.  227 

but  then  the  busy  would  not  have  had  leisure,  nor  the  idle  inclina¬ 
tion  to  have  read  it.  Should  it  ever  have  the  honor  to  be  admitted 
into  such  good  company,  they  will  immediately,  I  know,  determine, 
that  it  must  be  the  work  of  some  enthusiast  or  methodist,  some 
beggar  or  some  madman.  I  shall,  therefore,  beg  leave  to  assure 
them,  that  the  author  is  very  far  removed  from  all  these  characters. 
That  he  once,  perhaps,  believed  as  little  as  themselves ;  but  having 
some  leisure,  and  more  curiosity,  he  employed  them  both  in  resolv¬ 
ing  a  question,  which  seemed  to  him  of  some  importance — Whether 
Christianity  was  really  an  imposture  founded  on  an  absurd,  incredi¬ 
ble,  and  obsolete  fable,  as  many  suppose  it  ?  Or  whether  it  is,  what 
it  pretends  to  be,  a  revelation  communicated  to  mankind  by  the  inter¬ 
position  of  supernatural  power?  On  a  candid  inquiry,  he  soon  found, 
that  the  first  was  an  absolute  impossibility,  and  that  its  pretensions 
to  the  latter  were  founded  on  the  most  soUd  grounds.  In  the  farther 
pursuit  of  his  examination  he  perceived,  at  every  step,  new  lights 
arising,  and  some  of  the  brightest  from  parts  of  it  the  most  obscure, 
but  productive  of  the  clearest  proofs,  because  equally  beyond  the' 
power  of  human  artifice  tainvent,  and  human  reason  to  discover. 
These  arguments,  which  have  convinced  him  of  the  Divine  origin 
of  this  religion,  he  has  here  put  together  in  as  clear  and  concise  a 
manner  as  he  was  able,  thinking  they  might  have  the  same  effect 
upon  others,  and  being  of  opinion,  that  if  there  were  a  few  more 
true  Christians  in  the  world,  it  would  be  beneficial  to  themselves, 
and  by  no  means  detrimental  to  the  public. 


K  6ti',  •-  '"^  > 

'  /•-•..  ,.  iV^ _ 


•  '-"Jk  ,-iw.  .■.,••  ^  ~ 

'  *  ■•■  •'■'•'  ■  ;,•■  •  ■  '“’  •■'  ■I-'-'.' 

'M^'  -’:'  '  it.  (  '(I  .  si,- J  *•£.■?<;««■ 

•-■i  V  ■  .  ,-:  ..Lirt-  • 


v;*.  iU*.'3 
.  ..u  ■(  , 


>  >-■ 


■■‘j,  ‘ 

>.  ,  :  f.  ^,1 

.  .:  /  ri  V 

J 


'*\‘t 


r  . 


y » 


.  ■  *  :V.  ;V 


-■ 

.  r-‘v-'- 


■'  ;2»s- 

’  V 


.'  '  i  ■ 


'-  ■  ■»• ! 


**•..-  1 ' 

.  y. 


A 

SHORT  AND  EASY 
METHOD  WITH  THE  DEISTS 
IN  A  LETTER  TO  A  FRIEND. 


THE  REV.  CHARLES  LESLIE,  M.  A. 


u 


15 


A 


SHORT  AND  EASY 

method  with  the  deists. 


answer  to  yours  of  the  third  instant,  I  much  condole  with 
nan  circumstances,  of  being  placecj  among  such  com- 

continually  hear  the  sared  ScriptSS 

Chris?  andXev*r?''  particularly  of  Mnser?nd  of 

sPt  nnVn.  J^cvealed  religion,  turned  into  ridicule  by  men  who 

Snnn/f  t^^t  there  is  no  greater 

fpnn  Mojiammed ;  that  all  thefe  pre- 

Tpf  revelaDon  are  cheats,  and  been  among  PaeS 

Jews,  iVfohammedans,  and  Christians ;  that  they  are  all  aldie  impo¬ 
sitions  of  cunning  and  designing  men,  upon  tL  credulity  at  first 
of  simple  and  unthinking  people,  till,  their  numbers  increasmg  their 
delusions  grew  popular,  came  at  last  to  be  established  bv  laws’ -  S 
Jen  the  force  of  education  and  custom  gives  aS  to  thTiiiX 
ments  of  after  ages,  till  such  deceits  come  really  to  be  believed 

^gcs  foregoingf  without  examin 
m?n  of  sense7S”tbp''^  them.  Which  these  our  modern 

tha?theroX esteemed)  say,  that  they  only  do, 
XecedS  the  slavish  authority 

onlS  to  hP  Jpp-^  H  L  truth,  which,  they  say,  ought 

^PularkY  and  ^  ^  com^ iance  w?th 

E  nP^LS^  T  ’  they  preserve  themselves  from  outrage,  and 

inf;  ofmar^rdoS'  '“■<>  “<'‘>‘‘=‘<='3  «>  =uffer- 

re^IoiT’if  some  short  topic  of 

'  ,  I  such  can  be  found,  whereby,  without  runnino'  to  aul  hnH 

her,  and  toe  intricate  mazes  of  learning,  which  breed  lone  disriiites' 
and  which  these  men  of  reason  deny  b?  wholesale  ttS  ?hercS 
Ki  *“PP“*'’  titaJauthors  havl  beln  SpS 

uSn  th’pm  y  corrupted,  so  that  no  stress  can  be  laid 

rid^  whi?h  ^  wherein  they  are  so  cor- 

alleirp  ’it  -  ^c^^on,  ought  to  he  upon  them  to  prove  who 

and^the  more^E^^hi*  ^  precarious,  but  a  guilty  plea: 

w-hoi  aShorit^ti  ^  ^  to  quote  books  on  their  side,  for 

ever'vou  sa^i^^rior  ^“better,  or  not  so  good  grounds.  How- 
j  y  y,  t  makes  your  disputes  endless,  and  they  go  away  wfith 


20-2  Leslie’s  Method 

skirj  Sisr£SSsS= 

impostures  either^oblieed  to  renounce  their 

r^f’ STo  Sr^"ure 

Sne”a|rp?oof.Vavoidc^^^^^^^^  <0  be  found  out. 

^“^Tou"y£jan^^^ 

proof,  because  every  reason,  must  be  sufficient; 

ri 

especially  to  weak  juilgments.  ,  j  j  could  per- 

55;iHE««s,ix-:sr.a 

3!;::f3%iS5EE€:;': 

vouch  the  truth  of  what  he  ^e^eie  .  brought  the  children 

SES-%£=;Sir=s 

told  of  him.  it  must  ne«e®anly  follow,  that  he 

'HSSST-irSa.-— ;J£: 

proof  of  these  patters  of  fact  ^ 

And  the  method  I  they  all  meet, 

the  truth  of  matters  of  A  a  j  secondly,  to  show 

me?oV?he  hShSet™  nor  can  possibly  meet  in  any  imposture 

whatsoever. 

KirmStm  of  fact  be  such,  as  that  men's  outward  senses, • 
their  eyes  and  ears,  may  be  judges  of  it. 

I  tK  “t"  oriyVnbh^— f  ^  ’’I  '^'P'  "P  >■' 

'rKt°rh^m— or  observances  be 


with  the  Deists. 


233 


instituted,  and  do  commence  from  the  time  that  the  matter  of  fact 
was  done. 

The  two  first  rules  make  it  impossible  for  any  such  matter  of  fact 
to  be  imposed  upon  men,  at  the  time  when  such  matter  of  fact  was 
said  to  be  done,  because  every  man’s  eyes  and  senses  would  contra¬ 
dict  it.  For  example ;  suppose  any  man  should  pretend,  that  yester¬ 
day  he  divided  the  Thames,  in  presence  of  all  the  people  of  Lon¬ 
don,  and  carried  the  whole  city,  men,  women,  and  children,  over  to 
Southwark  on  dry  land,  the  water  standing  like  walls  on  both  sides : 
I  say,  it  is  morally  impossible  that  he  could  persuade  tjie  people  of 
London,  that  this  was  true,  when  every  man,  woman,  and  child, 
could  contradict  him,  and  say,  this  was  a  notorious  falsehood,  for 
that  they  had  not  seen  the  Thames  so  divided,  nor  had  gone  over 
on  dry  land.  Therefore  I  take  it  for  granted,  (and  I  suppose,  with 
the  allowance  of  all  the  deists  in  the  world)  that  no  such  imposition 
could  be  put  upon  men,  at  the  time  when  such  public  matter  of  fact 
was  said  to  be  done. 


Therefore  it  only  remains,  that  such  matter  of  fact  might  be  in¬ 
vented  some  time  after,  when  the  men  of  that  generation,  wherein 
tlie  thing  w  as  said  to  be  done,  are  all  past  and  gone  ;  and  the  cre¬ 
dulity  of  after  ages  might  be  imposed  upon,  to  believe  that  things 
were  done  in  former  ages,  which  were  not. 

And  for  this  the  two  last  rules  secure  us  as  much  as  the  two  first 
rules,  in  the  former  case  ;  for  whenever  such  a  matter  of  fact  came 
to  be  invented,  if  not  only  monuments  were  said  to  remain  of  it,  but 
likewise  that  public  actions  and  observances  were  constantly  used 
ever  since  the  matter  of  fact  was  said  to  be  done ;  the  deceit  must 
be  detected,  by  no  such  monuments  appearing,  and  by  the  experi¬ 
ence  of  every  man,  woman,  and  child,  who  must  know  that  no  such 
actions  or  observances  w'ei’e  ever  used  by  them.  For  example 
suppose  I  should  now  invent  a  story  of  such  a  thing,  done  a  thou¬ 
sand  years  ago,  I  might  perhaps  get  some  to  believe  it ;  but  if  I  say 
that  not  only  such  a  thing  was  done,  but  that  from  that  day  to  this, 
every  man,  at  the  age  of  twelve  years,  had  a  joint  of  his  little  finger 
cut  off;  and  that  eveiy  man  in  the  nation  did  want  a  joint  of  such 
a  finger ;  and  that  this  institution  was  said  to  be  part  of  the  matter 
of  fact  done  so  many  years  ago,  and  vouched  as  a  proof  and  con¬ 
firmation  of  it,  and  as  having  descended  without  interruption,  and 
been  constantly  practised,  in  memory  of  such  matter  of  fact  all 
along,  from  the  time  that  such  matter  of  fact  was  done :  I  say,  it  is 
impossible  I  should  be  believed  in  such  a  case,  because  eveiy  one 
could  contradict  me,  as  to  the  mark  of  cutting  off  a  joint  of  the  fin¬ 
ger;  and  that  being  part  of  my  original  matter  of  fact,  must  demon¬ 
strate  the  whole  to  be  false. 

II.  Let  us  now  come  to  the  second  point,  to  show,  that  the  mat¬ 
ters  of  fact  of  Moses,  and  of  Christ,  have  all  these  rules  or  marks 
before  mentioned ;  and  that  neither  the  matters  of  fact  of  Moham¬ 
med,  or  what  is  reported  of  the  heathen  deities,  have  the  like ;  and 
that  no  imposture  can  have  them  all. 

As  to  Moses,  I  suppose  it  will  be  allowed  me,  that  he  could  not 

U  3 


234 


Leslie’s  Method 


have  persuaded  six  hundred  thousand  men,  that  he  had  brought 
them  out  of  Egy  pt,  through  the  Red  sea ;  fed  them  forty  yearn  with¬ 
out  bread,  by  miraculous  manna,  and  the  other  matters  of  fact  re¬ 
corded  in  his  boolis,  if  they  had  not  been  true.  Because  every 
man’s  senses  that  were  then  alive,  must  have  contradicted  it.  Anti 
therefore  he  must  have  imposed  upon  all  their  senses,  if  he  could 
have  made  them  believe  it,  when  it  was  false,  and  no  such  things 
done.  So  that  here  are  the  first  and  second  of  the  above  mentioned 

^^Forth^same  reason  it  was  equally  impossible  for  him  to  have 
made  them  receive^his  five  books  as  truth,  and  not  to  have  rejected 
them,  as  a  manifest  imposture ;  which  told  of  all  these  things  as  done 
before  their  eyes,  if  they  had  not  been  so  done.  See  how  positively 
he  speaks  to  them,  Deiit.  xi.  2—8,  “And  loiow  you  this  day,  for  1 
speak  not  wuth  your  children  which  have  not  known,  and  which 
have  not  seen  the  chastisement  of  the  Lord  your  God,  his  greatness, 
his  mighty  hand,  and  his  stretched-out  arm,  and  his  miracles,  and 
his  acts,  which  he  did  in  the  midst  of  Egypt,  unto  Pharaoh  the  king 
of  Egypt  and  unto  all  his  land,  and  what  he  did  unto  the  army  ot 
E^^ypt.  unto  their  horses,  and  to  their  chariots ;  how  he  made  the 
w^ter  of  the  Red  sea  to  overflow  them  as  they  pursued  after  you; 
and  how  the  Lord  hath  destroyed  them  unto  this  day :  and  what  he 
did  unto  you  in  the  wilderness  until  ye  came  into  this  place ;  and 
what  he  did  unto  Dathan  and  Abiram  the  sons  of  Ehab,  the  son  ol 
Reuben,  how  the  earth  opened  her  -mouth,  and  swallowed  them 
np  and  their  households,  and  their  tents,  and  all  the  substance  that 
was  in  their  possession,  in  the  midst  of  all  Israel.  But  your  eyes 
have  seen  all  the  great  acts  of  the  Lord,  which  he  did,  &c. 

From  hence  we  must  suppose  it  impossible  that  these  books  ol 
Moses,  (if  an  imposture)  could  have  been  invented  and  put  upon 
the  people,  who  were  then  alive  when  all  these  things  were  said  to 

be  done.  ^  i,  .  •  + 

The  utmost,  therefore,  that  even  a  suppose  can  stretch  to,  is,  tnat 

these  books  were  wrote  in  some  age  after  Moses,-  and  put  out  in  his 

And  to  this  I  say,  that  if  it  w^as  so,  it  was  impossible  that  those 
books  should  have  been  received,  as  the  books  of  Moses,  in  that  age 
wherein  they  may  have  been  supposed  to  have  been  first  invented. 
Whv^  Because  they  speak  of  themselves  as  delivered  by  Moses, 
and  kept  in  the  ark  from  his  time.  “And  it  came  to  pass,  when 
Moses  had  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  law  m  a  liook 
until  thev  were  finished ;  that  Moses  commanded  tlto  Levites,  who 
bare  the^ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  saying.  Take  this  bwk 
of  the  law  and  put  it  in  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the 
Lord  your  God,  that  it  may  be  there  for  a  witness  against  thee. 
Dent  xxxi  24—26.  And  there  was  a  copy  of  this  book  to  be  lett 
likewise  with  the  king.  “And  it  shall  be  when  he  sitteth  upon 
the  throne  of  his  kingdom,  that  he  shall  write  him  a  copy  of  this 
law  in  a  book,  out  of  that  which  is  before  the  priests  the  = 

and  it  shall  be  with  him,  and  he  shall  read  therein  all  the  days  of 


his  life :  that  he  may  learn  to  fear  the  Lord  his  God,  to  keen  all  the 
words  of  this  law,  and  these  statutes  to  do  them,”  Deut.  xvii.  18  19. 

Here,  you  see  that  this  book  of  the  law,  speaks  of  itself,  not  only 
as  a  history  or  relation  of  what  things  were  then  done :  but  as  the 
standing  and  municipal  law  and  statutes  of  the  nation  of  the  Jews 
biiidmg  the  king  as  well  as  the  people,  ^ 

Now,  in  whatever  age  after  Moses  you  wall  suppose  this  book  to 
have  been  forged,  it  was  impossible  it  could  be  received  as  truth* 
because  it  was  not  then  to  be  found,  either  in  the  ark,  or  wdth  the 
king,  or  anywhere  else :  for  when  first  invented,  every  body  must 
know,  that  they  had  never  heard  of  it  before. 

And  therefore  they  could  less  believe  it  to  be  the  book  of  their 
statutes  and  the  standing  law  of  the  land,  which  they  had  all  along 
received,  and  by  which  they  had  been  governed. 

Could  any  man,  now  at  this  day,  invent  a  book  of  statutes  or  acts 
ot  parliament  for  England,  and  make  it  pass  upon  the  nation  as  the 
only  book  of  statutes  that  ever  they  had  known  ?  As  impossible  was 
^  books  of  Moses  (if  they  were  invented  in  any  age  after 
Moses)  to  have  been  received  for  what  they  declared  themselves  to 
be,  VIZ.  the  statutes  and  municipal  law  of  the  nation  of  the  Jews : 
f  j  to  have  persuaded  the  Jews,  that  they  had  owned  and  acknow- 
ledged  these  books,  all  along  from  the  days  of  Moses,  to  that  day 
in  which  they  were  first  invented,  that  is,  that  they  had  owned  them 
before  they  had  ever  so  much  as  heard  of  them.  Nay,  more,  the 
whole  nafion  must,  in  an  instant,  forget  their  former  laws  and  gov¬ 
ernment,  if  they  could  receive  these  books  as  being  their  former 
laws.  And  they  could  not  otherwise  receive  them,  because  they 
vouched  themselves  so  to  be.  Let  me  ask  the  deist  but  this  one 
short  question.  Was  there  ever  a  book  of  sham  laws,  which  were 
not  the  laws  of  the  nation,  palmed  upon  any  people,  since  the  w^orld 
began  ?  If  not,  with  what  face  can  they  say  this,  of  the  book  of 
laws  of  the  Jevvs  ?  Why  vyill  they  say  that  of  them,  which  they  con¬ 
fess  impossible  in  any  nation,  or  among  any  people  ? 

But  they  must  be  yet  more  unreasonable.  For  the  books  of  Moses 
have  a  farther  demonstration  of  their  truth,  than  even  other  law 
books  have ;  for  they  not  only  contain  the  laws,  but  give  an  histori¬ 
cal  account  of  their  institution,  and  the  practice  of  them  Irom  that 
time :  as  of  the  passover.  Numbers  viii.  17,  18,  in  memory  of  the 
death  of  the  first-born  in  Egypt:  and  that  the  same  day,  all  the 
first-born  of  Israel  both  of  man  and  beast,  were  by  a  perpetual  law 
dedicated  to  God  :  and  the  Levites  taken  for  all  the  first-born  of  the 
children  of  Israel.  That  Aaron’s  rod  which  budded,  was  kept  in 
the  ark,  in  memory  of  the  rebellion  and  wonderful  destruction  of 
Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram ;  and  for  the  confirmation  of  the  priest- 
e  u  tribe  of  Levi.  As  likewise  the  pot  of  manna,  in  memory 

V  ^  having  been  fed  with  it  forty  years  in  the  wilderness.  That 
the  brazen  serpent  was  kept  (which  remained  to  the  days  of  Heze- 
kiah,  2  Kings  xviii.  4,)  in  memory  of  that  wonderful  deliverance,  by 
only  looking  upon  it,  from  the  biting  of  the  fiery  serpents,  Numb- 


236 


Leslie's  Method 


xxi.  9.  The  feast  of  pentecost,  in  memory  of  the  dreadful  appear¬ 
ance  of  God  upon  mount  Horeb,  «Sz;c.  . 

And,  besides  these  remembrances  of  pa,rticular  actions  and  oc¬ 
currences,  there  were  other  solemn  institutions  in  memory  of  their 
deliverance  out  of  Egypt  in  the  general,  which  included  all  the 
particulars,  as  of  the  sabbath,  Deut.  v.  15.  Their  daily  sacrifices, 
and  yearly  expiation,  their  new  moons,  and  several  leasts  and  lasts. 
So  that  there  were  yearly,  monthly,  weekly,  daily  remembrances, 
and  recognitions  of  these  things. 

And  not  only  so,  but  the  books  of  the  same  Moses  tell  us,  that  a 
particular  tribe  [of  Levi]  was  appointed  and  consecrated  by  God^ 
his  priests ;  by  whose  hands  and  none  other,  the  sacrifices  ol  the 
people  were  to  be  offered,  and  these  solemn  institutions  to  be  cele¬ 
brated.  That  it  was  death  for  any  other  to  approach  the  aimr. 
That  their  high  priest  wore  a  glorious  mitre,  and  magnificent  robes 
of  God’s  own  contrivance,  with  the  miraculous  Urim  and  Thun^im 
in  his  breast-plate,  whence  the  divine  responses  were  given.  1  hat 
at  his  word,  the  king,  and  all  the  people  were  to  go  out,  and  to  come 
in  Num.  xxvii.  21.  That  these  Levites  were  likewise  the  chief 
iudsres,  even  in  all  civil  causes,  and  that  it  was  death  to  resist  their 
4ntence,  Deut.  xvii.  8—13 ;  1  Chron.  xxiii.  4.  Now  whenever  it  can 
be  supposed  that  these  books  of  Moses  were  forged,  in  some  ages 
after  Moses,  it  is  impossible  they  could  have  been  received  as  true, 
unless  the  forgers  could  have  made  the  whole  nation  believe,  thm 
they  had  received  th€>se  books  from  their  fathers,  had  been  instructed 
in  them  when  they  were  children,  and  had  taught  them  to  their 
children ;  moreover,  that  they  had  all  been  circumcised,  and  did 
circumcise  their  children,  in  pursuance  to  what  was  commanded  in 
these  books :  that  they  had  observed  the  yearly  passover,  the  weekly 
sabbath,  the  new  moons,  and  all  these  several  feasts,  lasts,  and 
ceremonies,  commanded  in  these  books :  that  they  had  never  eaten 
any  swine’s  flesh,  or  other  meats  prohibited  in  these  boofe;  that 
they  had  a  magnificent  tabernacle,  with  a  visible  priesthood  to  ad- 
mimster  in  it,  which  was  confined  to  the  tribe  of  Levi ;  over  whom 
was  placed  a  glorious  high  priest,  clothed  with  great  and  mighty 
prerogative,  whose  death  only  could  deliver  those  that  were  fled  to 
the  cities  of  refuge.  And  that  these  priests  were  their  ordinary 
iudges,  even  in  civil  matters,  Num.  xxxv.  25,  28.  I  fay,  was  it  pos¬ 
sible  to  have  persuaded  a  whole  nation  of  men,  that  they  had  known 
and  practised  all  these  things,  if  they  had  not  done  it?  or,  secondly, 
to  have  received  a  book  for  truth,  which  said  they  had  practised 
them,  and  appealed  to  that  practice ;  so  that  here  are  the  third  and 

fourth  of  the  marks  above  mentioned. 

But  now  let  us  descend  to  the  utmost  degree  of  supposition,  viz. 
that  these  things  were  practised,  before  these  books  of  Moses  were 
forged  ;  and  that  these  books  did  only  impose  upon  the  nation,  m 
making  them  believe,  that  they  had  kept  these  observances  in 
memory  of  such  and  such  things,  as  were  inserted  in  these  books. 

Well  then  let  us  proceed  upon  this  supposition,  (however  grourm- 
less,)  and  now,  will  not  the  same  impossibihties  occur,  as  in  the 


with  the  Deists.  237 

^rraer  case  ?  For  first,  this  must  suppose  that  the  Jews  kept  all 
inese  observances  in  memory  of  nothing,  or  without  knowing  any 
thing  of  their  original,  or  the  reason  why  they  kept  them.  Whereas 
these  very  observances  did  express  the  ground  and  reason  of  their 
being  kept,  as  the  passover  in  memory  of  God’s  passing  over  the 
children  of  the  Israelites,  in  that  night  wherein  he  slew  all  the  first¬ 
born  of  Egypt,  and  so  of  the  rest. 

But  secondly,  let  us  suppose,  contrary  both  to  reason  and  matter 
of  fact,  that  the  Jews  did  not  know  any  reason  at  all  why  they  kept 
these  observances ;  yet  was  it  possible  to  put  it  upon  them,  that  they 
had  kept  these  observances  in  memory  of  what  they  had  never- 
heard  of  before  that  day,  whensoever  you  will  suppose  that  these 
books  of  Moses  were  first  forged  ?  For  example,  suppose  I  should 
now  forge  some  romantic  story  of  strange  things  done  a  thousand 
years  ago,  and  in  confirmation  of  this,  should  endeavor  to  persuade 
the  Christian  world,  that  they  had  all  along,  from  that  day  to  this, 
kept  the  first  day  of  the  week  in  memory  of  such  a  hero,  an  Apol¬ 
lonius,  a  Barcosbas,  or  a  Mohammed;  and  had  all  been  baptized  in 
his  name ;  and  swore  by  his  name,  and  upon  that  very  book,  (which 
I  had  then  forged,  and  which  they  never  saw  before,)  in  their  pub¬ 
lic  judicatures  ;  that  this  book  was  their  gospel  and  law,  which  they 
had  ever  since  that  time,  these  thousand  years  past,  universally  re¬ 
ceived  and  owned,  and  none  other.  I  would  ask  any  deist,  whether 
he  thinks  it  possible,  that  such  a  cheat  could  pass,  or  such  a  legend 
be  received  as  the  gospel  of  Christians ;  and  that  they  could  be 
made  believe,  that  they  never  had  any  other  gospel  ?  The  same 
reason  is  as  to  the  books  of  Moses,  and  must  be,  as  to  every  matter 
of  fact,  which  has  all  the  four  marks  before  mentioned  ;  and  these 
marl^  secure  any  such  matter  of  fact  as  much  from  being  invented 
and  imposed  in  any  after  ages,  as  at  the  time  when  such  matters  of 
fact  were  said  to  be  done. 

Let  me  give  one  very  familiar  example  more  in  this  case.  There 
is  the  Stonehenge  in  Salisbuiy  Plain,  every  body  knows  it ;  and  yet 
none  knows  the  reason  why  those  great  stones  were  set  there,  or  by 
whom,  or  in  memory  of  what. 

Now  suppose  I  should  write  a  book  to-morrow,  and  tell  there 
that  these  stones  were  set  up  by  Hercules,  Polyphemus,  or  Garagan- 
tua,  in  memory  of  such  and  such  of  their  actions.  And  for  a  farther 
confirmation  of  this,  should  say,  in  this  book,  that  it  was  wrote  at 
the  time  when  such  actions  were  done,  and  by  the  very  actors  them¬ 
selves,  or  eye-witnesses.  And  that  this  book  had  been  received  as 
truth,  and  quoted  by  authors  of  the  greatest  reputation  in  all  ages 
since.  Moreover,  that  this  book  was  well  known  in  England,  jmd 
enjoined  by  act  of  parliament  to  be  taught  our  children,  and  that 
w-e  did  teach  it  to  our  children,  and  had  been  taught  it  ourselves 
when  we  were  children.  I  ask  any  deist,  whether  he  thinks  this 
could  pass  upon  England  ?  And  whether,  if  I,  or  any  other  should 
insist  upon  it,  we  should  not,  instead  of  being  believed,  be  sent  to 
Bedlam  ? 

Now  let  us  compare  this  with  the  Stonehenge,  as  I  may  call  it,  or 


288  Leslie^s  Method 

twelve  great  stones  set  up  at  Gilgal,  which  is  told  m  the  fourth 
chapter  of  Joshua.  It  is  there  said,  verse  6,  that  the  reason  why 
they  were  set  up,  was,  that  when  their  children,  in  after  ages,  should 
ask  the  meaning  of  it,  it  should  be  told  them. 

And  the  thing  in  memory  of  which  they  were  set  up,  was  such 
as  could  not  possibly  be  imposed  upon  that  nation,  at  that  time, 
when  it  was  said  to  be  done :  it  was  as  wonderful  and  miraculous  as 
their  passage  through  the  Red  sea. 

And  withal,  free  from  a  very  poor  objection,  which  the  deists 
have  advanced  against  that  miracle  of  the  Red  sea :  thinking  to 
solve  it  by  a  spring  tide,  with  the  concurrence  of  a  strong  wind, 
happening  at  the  same  time,  which  left  the  sand  so  dry,  as  that  the 
Israelites  being  all  foot,  might  pass  through  the  oozy  places  and 
holes,  which  it  must  be  supposed  the  sea  left  behind  it :  but  that  the 
Egyptians  being  all  horse  and  chariots,  stuck  in  those  holes  and 
were  entangled,  so  as  that  they  could  not  march  so  fast  as  the  Is¬ 
raelites  :  and  that  this  was  all  the  meaning  of  its  being  said,  that 
God  took  off  their  [the  Egyptians]  chariot  wheels,  that  they  drove 
them  heavily.  So  that  they  would  make  nothing  exti’aordinary,  at 
least,  not  miraculous  in  all  this  action. 

This  is  advanced  in  Le  Clerc’s  Dissertations  upon  Genesis,  lately 
printed  in  Holland,  and  that  part  with  others  of  the  like  tendency, 
endeavoring  to  resolve  other  miracles,  as  that  of  Sodom  and  Gomor¬ 
rah,  &c.  into  the  mere  natural  causes,  are  put  into  English  by  the 
well  known  T.  Brown,  for  the  edification  of  the  deists  in  England. 

But  these  gentlemen  have  forgotten,  that  the  Israelites  had  great 
herds  of  many  thousand  cattle  with  them;  which  would  be  apter 
to  stray,  and  fall  into  those  holes,  and  oozy  places  in  the  sand,  than 
horses  with  riders,  who  might  direct  them. 

But  such  precarious  and  silly  supposes  are  not  worth  the  answer¬ 
ing.  If  there  had  been  no  more  in  this  passage  through  the  Red 
sea,  than  that  of  a  spring  tide,  &c.  it  had  been  impossible  for  Moses 
to  have  made  the  Israelites  believe  the  relatiop  given  of  it  in  Exo¬ 
dus,  with  so  many  particulars,  which  themselves  saw  to  be  true. 

And  all  those  scriptures  which  magnify  this  action,  and  appeal  to 
it  as  a  full  demonstration  of  the  miraculous  power  of  God,  must  be 
reputed  as  romance  or  legend. 

I  say  this  for  the  sake  of  some  Christians,  who  think  it  no  preju¬ 
dice  to  the  truth  of  the  Holy  Bible,  but  rather  an  advantage,  as  ren¬ 
dering  it  more  easy  to  be  believed,  if  they  can  solve  whatever 
seems  miraculous  in  it,  by  the  power  of  second  ca,uses ;  and  so  to 
make  all,  as  they  speak,  natural  and  easy.  Wherein  if  they  could 
prevail,  the  natural  and  easy  result  would  be,  not  to  believe  one 
word  in  all  those  sacred  oracles.  For,  if  things  be  not  as  they  are 
told  in  any  relation,  that  relation  must  be  false.  And  if  false  in 
part,  we  cannot  trust  to  it,  either  in  whole  or  in  part. 

Here  are  to  be  excepted,  mistranslations,  and  errors,  either  in 
copy,  or  in  press.  But  where  there  is  no  room  for  supposing  of 
these,  as  where  all  copies  do  agree  ;  there  we  must  either  receive 
all,  or  reject  all.  I  mean  in  any  book  that  pretends  to  be  written 


239 


with  the  Deists, 

from  the  mouth  of  God-  For  in  other  common  histories,  we  may 
beheve  part  and  reject  part,  as  we  see  cause. 

But  to  return.  The  passage  of  the  Israelites  over  Jordan,  in 
memory  of  which  tlicse  stones  at  Gilgal  were  set  up,  is  free  from  al] 
those  little  earplugs  before  mentioned,  that  are  made  as  to  the  pas¬ 
sage  through  the  Red  sea.  For  notice  was  given  to  the  Israelites 
the  day  before,  of  this  great  miracle  to  be  done,  Josh.  iii.  5.  It  was 
done  at  noon  day,  before  the  whole  nation.  And  when  the  waters 
of  Jordan  were  divided,  it  was  not  at  any  low  ebb,  but  at  the  time 
when  that  river  overflowed  all  its  banks,  verse  15.  And  it  was 
done,  not  by  winds,  or  in  length  of  time,  which  winds  must  take  to 
do  it;  but  all  on  the  sudden,  as  soon  as  the  feet  of  the  priests  that 
bare  tiie  ark  were  dipped  in  the  brim  of  the  water,  then  the  waters 
whicir  came  down  from  above,  stood  and  rose  up  upon  a  heap,  very 
far  from  the  city  Adam,  that  is  besides  Zaretan :  and  those  that 
came  down  toward  the  sea  of  the  plain,  even  the  salt  sea,  failed, 
and  were  cut  off;  and  the  people  passed  over,  right  against  Jericho. 
The  priests  stood  in  the  midst  of  Jordan,  till  all  the  armies  of  Israel 
had  passed  over.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  priests  that  bare 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  were  come  up,  out  of  the 
midst  of  Jordan,  and  the  soles  of  the  priests’  feet  were  lift  up  upon 
the  dry  land,  that  the  waters  of  Jordan  returned  unto  their  place, 
and  flowed  over  all  his  banks  as  they  did  before.  And  the  people 
came  up  out  of  Jordan,  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  first  month,  and  en¬ 
camped  in  Gilgal,  on  the  east  border  of  Jericho.  And  those  twelve 
stones  which  they  took  out  of  Jordan,  did  Joshua  pitch  in  Gilgal. 
And  he  spake  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  saying.  When  your  chil¬ 
dren  shall  ask  their  fathers,  in  time  to  come,  saying.  What  mean 
these  stones  ?  Then  shall  ye  let  your  children  know,  saying,  Israel 
came  over  this  Jordan  on  dry  land.  For  the  Lord  your  God  dried 
up  the  waters  of  Jordan  from  before  you,  until  ye  were  passed 
over ;  as  the  Lord  your  God  did  to  the  Red  sea,  which  he  dried  up 
from  before  us,  until  we  were  gone  over.  That  all  the  people  of 
the  earth  might  know  the  hand  of  the  Lord,  that  it  is  mighty :  that 
ye  might  fear  the  Lord  your  God  for  et^r ;  chapter  iv.  from  verse  18. 

If  the  passage  of  the  Red  sea  had  been  only  taking  advantage  of 
a  spring  tide,  or  the  like,  how  would  this  teach  all  the  people  of  the 
earth  that  the  hand  of  the  Lord  was  mighty  ?  How  would  a  thing 
no  more  remarkable,  have  been  taken  notice  of  through  all  the 
world  ?  How  would  it  have  taught  Israel  to  fear  the  Lord,  when  they 
must  know,  that  notwithstanding  all  of  these  big  words,  there  was  so 
littiC  in  it  ?  How  could  they  have  believed,  or  received  a  book,  as 
truth,  which  they  knew,  told  the  matter  so  far  otherwise  from  what 
It  was  ? 

But,  as  I  said,  this  pass;me  over  Jordan,  which  is  here  compared 
to  that  of  the  Red  sea,  is  free  from  those  cavils  that  are  made  as  to 
that  of  the  Red  sea,  and  is  a  farther  attestation  to  it,  being  said  to  be 
done  in  the  same  manner  as  was  that  of  the  Red  sea. 

INow,  to  form  our  argument,  let  us  suppose,  that  there  never  w'as 
any  such  thing  as  that  passage  over  Jordan.  That  these  stones  at 


240  Leslie^s  Method 

Gilgal  were  set  up  upon  some  other  occasion,  in  some  a^er  age. 
And  then  that  some  designing  man  invented  this  book  of  Joshua, 
and  said,  that  it  was  written  by  Joshua,  at  that  time.  And  gave  this 
stonage  at  Gilgal  for  a  testimony  of  the  truth  of  it.  Would  not  every 
body  say  to  him.  We  know  the  stonage  at  Gilgal ;  but  we  never 
heard  before  of  this  reason  for  it?  Nor  of  this  book  oi  Joshua. 
Where  has  it  been  all  this  while  ?  And  where  and  how  came  you, 
after  so  many  ages,  to  find  it  ?  Besides,  this  book  tells  us,  that  this 
passage  over  Jordan  was  ordained  to  be  taught  our  children,  irom 
age  to  age ;  and  therefore,  that  they  were  always  to  be  instrimted  in 
the  meaning  of  that  stonage  at  Gilgal  as  a  memorial  of  it.  But  we 
were  never  taught  it  when  we  were  children ;  nor  did  ever  teacti 
our  children  any  such  thing.  And  it  is  not  likely  that  it  could  he,ve 
been  forgotten,  while  so  remarkable  a  stonage  did  continue,  whicli 
was  set  up  for  that,  and  no  other  end !  _ 

And  if,  for  the  reason  before  given,  no  such  imposition  eoind  be 
put  upon  us,  as  to  the  stonage  at  Salisbury  Plain;  how  much  less 
could  it  be  as  to  the  stonage  at  Gilgal ! 

And  if  where  we  know  not  the  reason  of  a  bare  naked  monu¬ 
ment,  such  a  sham  reason  cannot  be  imposed :  how  much  more  is  it 
impossible  to  impose  upon  us,  in  actions  and  observances,  which  we 
celebrate  in  memory  of  particular  passages !  How  impossible  to 
make  us  forget  those  passages  which  we  daily  commemoiate;  and 
persuade  us,  that  we  had  always  kept  such  institutions  in  menmry 
of  what  we  never  heard  of  before ;  that  is,  that  we  knew  it,  belore 

we  knew  it.  .  .  .  i.  * 

And  if  we  find  it  thus  impossible  for  an  imposition  to  be  put  upon 
us,  even  in  some  things,  which  have  not  all  the  four  marks  belore 
mentioned ;  how  much  more  impossible  is  it,  that  any  deceit  should 
be  in  that  thing,  where  all  the  four  marks  do  meet !  r-  r  f 

This  has  been  shown  in  the  first  place,  as  to  the  matters  ol  tact 

of  Moses.  •  1, 

Therefore  I  come  now,  secondly,  to  show,  that,  as  in  the  matters 
of  fact  of  Moses,  so  likewise,  all  these  four  marks  do  meet  in  the 
matters  of  fact,  which  are  recorded  in  the  gospel  of  our  blessed 
Saviour.  And  my  work  herein  will  be  the  shorter,  because  all  tha 
is  said  before,  of  Moses  and  his  books,  is  every  way  as  applicable  to 
Christ  and  his  gospel.  His  works  and  miracles  are  there  said  to  be 
done  publicly,  in  the  face  of  the  worW,  as  he  argued  to  his  accusers, 
“  I  spake  openly  to  the  world,  and  in  secret  have  I  said  nothing, 
John  xviii.  20.  It  is  told.  Acts  ii.  41,  that  three  thousand  at  one 
time ;  chap.  iv.  4,  that  above  five  thousand  at  another  time,  yi^re 
converted,  upon  conviction  of  what  themselves  had  seen,  what  bad 
been  done  publicly  before  their  eyes,  wherein  it  was  impossiWe  to 
have  imposed  upon  them.  Therefore  here  were  the  two  first  ol  t  e 
rules  before  mentioned. 

Then  for  the  two  second:  baptism  and  the  Lord  s  supper  were 
instituted  as  perpetual  memorials  of  these  things;  and  they  were 
not  instituted  in  after  ages,  but  at  the  very  time  when  these  things 
were  said  to  be  done ;  and  have  been  observed  without  mterrupuon, 


with  the  Deists, 


241 


in  all  ages  through  the  whole  Christian  world,  down  all  the  way 
from  that  time  to  this.  And  Christ  himself  did  ordain  apostles,  and 
other  ministers  of  his  gospel,  to  preach,  and  administer  these  sacra¬ 
ments  ;  and  to  govern  his  church ;  and  that  “  always,  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world,”  Matt,  xxviii.  20.  Accordingly  they  have  con¬ 
tinued  by  regular  succession  to  this  day ;  and,  no  doubt,  ever  shall, 
while  the  earth  shall  last.  So  that  the  Christian  clergy  are  as  noto¬ 
rious  a  matter  of  fact,  as  the  tribe  of  Levi  among  the  Jews.  And 
the  gospel  is  as  much  a  law  to  the  Christians,  as  the  book  of  Moses 
to  the  Jews.  And  it  being  part  of  the  matter  of  fact  related  in  the 
gospel,  that  such  an  order  of  men  were  appointed  by  Christ,  and  to 
continue  to  the  end  of  the  world ;  consequently,  if  the  gospel  was 
a  fiction,  and  invented  (as  it  must  be)  in  some  ages  after  Christ ;  then, 
at  that  time,  w'hen  it  was  first  invented,  there  could  be  no  such  or¬ 
der  of  clergy,  as  derived  themselves  from  the  institution  of  Christ; 
W'hich  must  give  the  lie  to  the  gospel,  and  demonstrate  the  whole  to 
be  false.  And  the  matters  of  fact  of  Christ  being  pressed  to  be 
true,  no  otherwise  than  as  there  was,  at  that  time  (whenever  the 
deists  wall  suppose  the  gospel  to  be  forged)  not  only  public  sacra¬ 
ments  of  Christ’s  institution,  but  an  order  of  clergy,  likewise  of  his 
appointment  to  administer  them :  and  it  being  impossible  there  could 
be  any  such  things  before  they  w'ere  invented,  it  is  as  impossible 
that  they  should  be  received  when  invented.  And  therefore,  by 
what  was  said  above,  it  was  as  impossible  to  have  imposed  upon 
mankind  in  this  matter,  by  inventing  of  it  in  after  ages,  as  at  the 
time  when  those  things  were  said  to  be  done. 

The  matters  of  fact  of  Mohammed,  or  what  is  fabled  of  the  dei¬ 
ties,  do  all  want  some  of  the  aforesaid  four  rules,  whereby  the  cer¬ 
tainty  of  matters  of  fact  is  demonstrated.  First,  Mohammed  pre¬ 
tended  to  no  miracles,  as  he  tells  us  in  his  Alcoran,  c.  6,  &c.  and  those 
which  are  commonly  told  of  him  pass  among  the  Mohammedans 
themselves  but  as  legendary  fables ;  and,  as  such,  are  rejected  by 
the  wise  and  learned  among  them ;  as  the  legends  of  their  saints 
are  in  the  church  of  Rome.  See  Dr.  Prideaux’s  Life  of  Moham¬ 
med,  page  34. 

But,  in  the  next  place,  those  which  are  told  of  him,  do  all  want 
the  two  first  rules  before  mentioned.  For  his  pretended  converse 
with  the  moon ;  his  Mersa,  or  night  journey  from  Mecca  to  Jenisa- 
lern,  and  thence  to  heaven,  &c.  w'ere  not  performed  before  any 
body.  We  have  only  his  own  word  for  them.  And  they  are  as 
groundless  as  the  delusions  of  Fox,  or  Muggleton,  among  ourselves. 
The  same  is  to  be  said  (in  the  second  place)  of  the  fables  of  the 
heathen  gods,  of  Mercury’s  stealing  sheep,  Jupiter’s  turning  himself 
into  a  bull,  and  the  like ;  besides  the  folly  and  unworthiness  of  such 
senseless  pretended  miracles.  And  moreover,  the  wise  among  the 
heathen  did  reckon  no  otherwise  of  these  but  as  fables,  which  had 
a  mythology,  or  mystical  meaning  in  them,  of  which  several  of 
them  have  given  us  the  rationale,  or  explication.  And  it  is  plain 
enough  that  Ovid  meant  no  other  by  all  his  Metamorphoses. 

It  is  true,  the  heathen  deities  had  their  priests :  they  had  likewise 


242 


Leslie^s  Method 


feasts,  earnes,  and  other  public  instihitions  in  memory  of  them.  But 
all  these  want  the  fourth  mark,  viz.  That  such  priesthood  and  insti¬ 
tutions  should  commence  from  the  time  that  such  things  as  they 
commemorate  were  said  to  he  done ;  otherwise  they  cannot  secure 
after  ages  from  the  imposture,  by  detecting  it,  at  the  time  when  hrst 
invented,  as  hath  been  argued  before.  But  the  Bacchanalia,  and 
other  heathen  feasts,  were  instituted  many  ages  after  what  was 
reported  of  these  gods  was  said  to  be  done,  and  therefore  can  be  no 
proof  of  them.  And  the  priests  of  Bacchus,  Apollo,  &c.,  were  not 
ordained  by  these  supposed  gods :  but  were  appointed  by  others,  in 
after  ages,  only  in  honor  to  them.  And  therefore  these  orders  ot 
priests  are  no  evidence  to  the  truth  of  the  matters  of  fact,  which 

are  reported  of  their  gods.  n 

III.  Now,  to  apply  what  has  been  said,  you  may  challenge  all  the 
deists  in  the  world  to  show  any  action  that  is  fabulous,  which  has 
all  the  four  rules,  or  marks  before  mentioned.  No,  it  is  impossible. 
And  (to  resume  a  little  what  is  spoken  to  before)  the  histones  of 
Exodus  and  the  gospel  could  never  have  been  received,  n  they  had 
not  been  true ;  because  the  institution  of  the  priesthood  of  Eev^ 
and  of  Christ;  of  the  sabbath,  the  passover,  of  circumcision,  ol 
baptism,  and  the  Lord’s  supper,  &c.,  are  there  related,  as  descend¬ 
ing  all  the  way  down  from  those  times  without  interruption.  And 
it  is  full  as  impossible  to  persuade  men,  that  they  had  been  circum¬ 
cised,  baptized,  had  circumcised  or  baptized  their  children,  cele¬ 
brated  passovers,  sabbaths,  sacraments,  &c.,  under  the  government, 
and  administration  of  a  certain  order  of  priests,  if  they  had  done 
none  of  these  things,  as  to  make  them  believe  that  they  had  gone 
through  sea  upon  dry  land,  seen  the  dead  raised,  &c.  And  withou 
believing  of  these,  it  was  impossible  that  either  the  law,  or  the  gos¬ 
pel,  could  have  been  received. 

And  the  truth  of  the  matters  of  fact  of  Exodus  and  the  gospel, 
being  no  otherwise  pressed  upon  men  than  as  they  have  practised 
such  public  institutions ;  it  is  appealing  to  the  senses  of  mankind  tor 
the  truth  of  them ;  and  makes  it  impossible  for  any  to  have  invented 
such  stories  in  after  ages,  without  a  palpable  detection  oi  the  chea  , 
when  first  invented ;  as  impossible  as  to  have  imposed  upon  the 
senses  of  mankind  at  the  time  when  such  public  matters  oi  lac 

were  said  to  be  done.  , 

IV.  I  do  not  say,  that  every  thing  which  wants  these  lour  marks 
is  false  :  but,  that  nothing  can  be  false  which  has  them  all. 

I  have  no  manner  of  doubt,  that  there  was  such  a  man  as  Julius 
Caesar ;  that  he  fought  at  Pharsalia,  was  killed  in  the  senate-house , 
and  many  other  matters  of  fact  of  ancient  times,  though  we  keep  no 

public  observances  in  memory  of  them.  j  /-.u 

But  this  shows  that  the  matters  of  fact  of  Moses  and  Christ,  have 
come  down  to  us  better  guarded  than  any  other  matters  ol  lact  how 

true  soever.  ,  ^ 

And  yet  our  deists,  who  would  laugh  any  man  out  of  the  world, 
as  an  irmtional  brute,  that  should  oflTer  to  deny  Csesar  or  Alpander, 
Homer  or  Virgil,  their  public  works  and  actions,  do,  at  the  same 


with  the  Deists.  243 

time,  value  themselves  as  the  only  men  of  wit  and  sense,  of  free, 
generous,  and  unbiassed  judgments,  for  ridiculing  the  liistories  of 
Moses  and  Christ,  that  are  infinitely  better  attested,  and  guarded 
with  infallible  marks,  which  the  others  want. 

V.  Besides  that,  the  importance  of  the  subject  would  oblige  all 
men  to  inquire  more  narrowly  into  the  one  than  the  other:  for  what 
consequence  is  it  to  me,  or  to  the  world,  whether  there  was  such  a 
man  as  Cssar ;  whether  he  beat,  or  was  beaten  at  JPharsalia ;  whether 
Homer  or  Virgil  wrote  such  books ;  and  whether  what  is  related  in 
the  Iliads  or  .^Eniads  be  true  or  false  ?  It  was  not  two  pence  up  or 
down  to  any  man  in  the  world.  And  therefore  it  is  worth  no  man’s 
while  to  inquire  into  it,  either  to  oppose  or  justify  the  truth  of  these 
relations. 

But  our  very  souls  and  bodies,  both  this  life  and  eternity,  are  con¬ 
cerned  in  the  truth  of  what  is  related  in  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  and 
men  would  be  more  inquisitive  to  search  into  the  truth 
of  these,  than  of  any  other  matters  of  fact;  examine  and  sift  them 
narrowly ;  and  find  out  the  deceit,  if  any  such  could  be  found :  for 
It  ^ncerned  them  nearly,  and  was  of  the  last  importance  to  them. 

How  unreasonable  then  is  it  to  reject  these  matters  of  fact  so 
silted,  so  examined,  and  so  attested  as  no  other  matters  of  fact  in  the 
world  ever  were;  and  yet  to  think  it  the  most  highly  unreasonable, 
even  to  madness,  to  deny  other  matters  of  fact,  w'hich  have  not  the 
thousandth  part  of  their  evidence,  and  are  of  no  consequence  at  all 
to  us,  whether  true  or  false ! 

several  other  topics,  from  whence  the  truth  of  the 
Christian  religion  is  evinced  to  all  who  judge  by  reason,  and  give 
themselves  leave  to  consider.  As  the  improbability  that  ten  or 
poor  illiterate  fishermen  should  form  a  design  of  converting 
the  whole  world  to  believe  their  delusions;  and  the  impossibility  of 
their  effecting  it,  without  force  of  arms,  learning,  oratory,  or  any  one 
Visible  thing  that  could  recommend  them !  And  to  impose  a  doctrine 
quite  opposite  to  the  lusts  and  pleasures  of  men,  and  all  worldly 
advantages,  or  enjoyments !  And  this  in  an  age  of  so  great  learning 
and  sagacity,  as  that  wherein  the  gospel  was  first  preached !  That 
mese  apostles  should  not  only  undergo  all  the  scorn  and  contempt, 
but  the  severest  persecutions,  and  most  cruel  deaths  that  could  bo 
mmcted,  in  attestation  to  what  themselves  knew  to  be  a  mere  de¬ 
ceit  and  forgery  of  their  own  contriving!  Some  have  su^red  for 
errors  which  they  thought  to  be  truth;  but  never  any  for  what 
themselves  knew  to  be  lies.  And  the  apostles  must  know  what 
they  taught  to  be  Ues,  if  it  was  so,  because  they  spoke  of  those 
thmgs  which  they  said  they  had  both  seen  and  heard,  had  looked 
upon,  and  handled  with  their  hands,  &c..  Acts  iv.  20;  1  John  i.  1. 

Neither  can  it  be  said  that  they,  perhaps,  might  have  proposed 
some  temporal  advantages  to  themselves,  but  missed  of  them,  and 
instead  of  them :  for,  if  it  had  been  so,  it  is  more 
probable,  that  when  they  saw  their  disappointment,  they  would 
nave  discovered  their  conspiracy ;  especially  when  they  might  not 


244 


Leslie's  Method 


only  have  saved  their  lives,  but  got  great  rewards  for  doing  it ;  than 
that  no  one  of  them  should  ever  have  been  brought  to  do  mis. 

But  this  is  not  all ;  for  they  tell  us  that  their  Master  bid  them 
expect  nothing  but  sufferings  m  this  world.  This  is  the  tenure  of 
all  that  gospel  which  they  taught.  And  they  told  the  same  to  all 
whom  they  converted.  So  that  here  was  no  disappointment. 

For,  all  that  were  converted  by  them,  were  converted  upon  the 
certain  expectation  of  sufferings,  and  bidden  prepare  for  it.  Christ 
commanded  his  disciples  to  take  up  their  cross  daily  and  follow  him; 
and  told  them,  that  in  the  world  they  should  have  tnbulation ;  that 
whoever  did  not  forsake  father,  mother,  wife,  children,  lands,  and 
their  very  lives,  could  not  be  his  disciples ;  that  he,  who  sought  to 
save  his  life  in  this  world,  should  lose  it  in  the  next. 

Now,  that  this  despised  doctrine  of  the  cross  should  prevail  so 
universally  against  the  allurements  of  flesh  and  blood,  and  all  the 
blandishments  of  this  w^orld ;  against  the  rage  and  persecution  of  all 
the  kings  and  powers  of  the  earth,  must  show  its  original  to  be 
divine,  and  its  protector  almighty.  Wliat  is  it  else,  could  conquer 
without  anus,  persuade  without  rhetoric,  overcome  enemies,  disarm 

tyrants,  and  subdue  empires  without  opposition ! 

VII:  We  may  add  to  all  this,  the  testimomes  of  the  most  bitter 
enemies  and  persecutors  of  Christianity,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  to 
the  truth  of  the  matter  of  fact  of  Christ,  such  as  Josephus  and 
Tacitus ;  of  which  the  first  flourished  about  forty  years  after  the 
death  of  Christ,  and  the  other  about  seventy  years  after :  so  that 
they  were  capable  of  examining  into  the  truth,  and  wanted  imt 
premdice  and  malice  sufficient  to  have  inclined  them  to  deny  the 
matter  of  fact  itself  of  Christ:  but  their  confessing  to  it,  as  likewise 
Lucian,  Celsus,  Porphyry,  and  Julian  the  apostate;  the  Moham¬ 
medans  since,  and  all  other  enemies  of  Christianity  that  have  arisen 
in  the  world,  is  an  undeniable  attestation  to  the  truth  of  the  matter 


of  fact.  j  • 

VIII.  But  there  is  another  argument  more  strong  and  convincing 
than  even  this  matter  of  fact ;  more  than  the  certainty  of  what  1 
see  with  my  eyes :  and  which  the  apostle  Peter  called  a  more  sure 
word,  that  is,  proof,  that  what  he  saw  and  heard  upon  the  holy 
mount,  when  our  blessed  Savior  was  tranfigured  before  him  and 
two  other  of  the  apostles:  for,  having  repeated  that  passage  as  a 
proof  of  that  whereof  they  were  eye-witnesses,  and  heard  the  voic^ 
from  heaven  giving  attestation  to  our  Lord  Chnst,  Z  Pet.  i.  lb,  l  b  1  • 
He  says,  ver.  19,  We  have  also  a  more  sure  word  of  prophecy  for 
the  proof  of  this  Jesus  being  the  Messiah,  that  is,  the  prophecies 
which  had  gone  before  of  him,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world; 

and  all  exactly  fulfilled  in  him.  ,  ,  .  > 

Men  may  dispute  an  imposition  or  delusion  upon  our  outward 
senses;  but  how  can  that  be  false  that  has  been  so  long,  even  from 
the  beginning  of  the  world,  and  so  often  by  all  the  presets,  in 
several  ages  foretold;  how  can  this  be  an  imposition,  or  a  forgery  f 
This  is  particularly  insisted  on  in  the  »  Mejod  with  the  Jews 
and  even  the  deists  must  confess,  that  that  book  we  call  the  Old 


with  the  Deists. 


245 


restamen t,  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Jews  long  before  our  Saviour 
came  into  the  world.  And  if  they  will  be  at  the  pains  to  compare 
the  prophecies  that  are  there  of  the  Messiah,  with  the  fulfilling  of 
them,  as  to  time,  place,  and  all  other  circumstances,  in  the  person 
birth,  fife,  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension  of  our  blessed  Saviour, 
will  find  this  proof  what  our  apostles  here  calls  it,  a  light  shining  in 
a  dark  place,  imtil  the  day  dawn,  and  the  day-star  arise  in  your 
hearts ;  which  God  grant.  Here  is  no  possibility  of  deceit  or  ira- 

Old  prophecies,  (and  all  these  so  agreeing)  could  not  have  been 
contrived  to  countenance  a  new  cheat:  and  nothing  could  be  a 
cheat  tha.t  could  fulfill  all  these. 

JevvV’^^^’  I  refer  the  deists  to  the  “  Method  with  the 

I  desire  them  likevrise  to  look  there,  sect.  xi.  and  consider  the 
prophecies  given  so  long  ago,  of  which  they  see  the  fulfilling  at  this 
day  with  their  own  eyes,  of  the  state  of  the  Jews,  for  many  a^es 
present ;  Avithout  a  king,  or  priest,  or  temple,  or  samfice, 
scattered  to  the  four  winds,  sifted  as  with  a  sieve,  among  all  nations: 
yet  so  preserved,  and  always  to  be,  a  distinct  people  from  all  others 
T  Whereas  those  mighty  monarchies  which  op- 

pressed  the  Jews,  and  which  commanded  the  world  in  their  turns  ; 
and  had  the  greatest  human  prospect  of  perpetuity,  were  to  be  ex- 
toguished  as  they  have  been,  even  that  their  names  should  be 
blotted  out  from  under  heaven. 

•  wise,  that  as  remarkable  of  our  blessed  Saviour,  concern- 

preservation  and  progress  of  the  Christian  church,  when  in 
ner  swaddling  clothes,  consisting  only  of  a  few  poor  fishermen.  Not 
cJ  that  of  Mohammed,  but  under  all  the  persecution 

R  should  not  prevail  against  her. 

^  offer  these,  as  not  to  be  slightedHiy  the  deists,  to 
they  can  show  nothing  equal  in  all  profane  history;  and  in 
Which  It  IS  impossible  any  cheat  can  lie;  yet  I  put  them  not  upon 
me  same  foot  as  the  prophecies  before  mentioned  of  the  marks  and 
coming  ot  the  Messiah,  which  have  been  since  the  world  began. 

And  that  general  expectation  of  the  whole  earth,  at  the  lime  of 
ms  coming  insisted  upon  in  the  “Method  with  the  Jews,”  sect.  v.  is 
greatly  to  be  noticed. 

«  foregoing  prophecies  of  our  Saviour,  are  so  strong 

Lthority  ^  miracles  would  not  be  sufficient  to  break  their 

w’ere  possible  that  a  true  miracle  could  be  wrought 
!iimSr^^^*^°^  contradict 

cflinnt  obstinacy.  Though  they 

trulv  the  matters  of  fact  done  by  our  blessed  Saviour,  to  be 

were  so  di®’  h  ,por  can  they  deny  that  they 

were  so  done,  because  they  have  all  the  four  marks  4fore  men 

y  8  16 


246 


Leslie’s  Method 


j  \T  f  rannnt  uield '  Whv?  Because  they  think  that  the 
tioned.  Yet  they  cannot  •  y  jf  it  were,  the  conse- 

gospel  is  in  contradiction  to  the  law.  ^hich^  u^u  w^ 

quence  would  be  unavoidable,  Jews.”  But  the 

solve  this,  is  the  business  of  comments  that  they 

contradiction,  which  they  „  literal  fulfilling  of  those 

put  upon  the  law ;  especially  glories  of  the 

promises  of  the  restoration  of  mpniion  in  the  books  of  Moses, 

church,  of  which  the:^  is  so  P^eque  j^anv  Christians  do  expect 

the  Psalms,  and  all  the  prophets.  Xu.  jews  do.  We  do 

the  same ;  and  take  tlmse  texts  as  li  y  j  this  end  they 

believe  and  pray  for  the  ,  according  to  the  prophecies 

have  been  so  miraculously  Pr®s®rved,  ^cording  p 

so  long  before  of  it.  And  when  that  time  "1^^°^®.  ^ 

the  most  honorable  and  ancient  of  Thristian  church,  as  she 

will  their  church  return  to  be  the  Th®n  all 

was  at  first;  and  Rome  tti^st  surren  temple  may  be  liter- 

nations  will  flow  thither.  Atid  p  ^u  ^Uglg  earth;  which  Jeru- 
ally  built  there,  in  the  metropohs  of  the  who^e  the 

ForTnation^^^^ 

SitiotTo  drl^VeT^^^^ 

and  from  whom,  as  concerning  the  restoration  of 

pretend  no.  fta.  .Us  is  te  any  partic«l« 

reign  of  the  Messiah.  They  are  sure  ^  trials  with  their 

for  they  expect  to  go  through  gte  ,  yUefore  his  final  conquest, 
Messiah  (as  the  Christian  church  ^^J^^^oglhat  this  is  no  obstruction 
and  that  they  come  to  r®^^!  with  lum.  So  this  is^^^ 

ffltedtnT'XKey  and  «  expect  the  same 

‘tSinlXst  the  deiste  lest  they 

u'hZ  S^rwSe'cZce^n*  .he  Mes- 

'“as  I  said  before,  I  would  not  P‘ead  even  mmcta  agtat  thej^^ 
And  if  this  is  sufficient  to  persuade  a  Jew,  it  is  muc 

a  deist,  who  labors  not  under  tUg^^  (in  a  sound  sense 

Besides  I  would  not  seem  to  clash  ™  thaUm  a 

reasonable  caution,  used  by  Chns  ‘  ^  addition,  when  no 

fon"  SSoTte  S'e'"— ns  already  given  in  dte  hob 

"tffiey  do  it  upon  to  ~nside^on  J 

K^aW"  “yti^Ln  n..y  le  imposed  uyonh 


with  the  Deists.  247 

false  and  seeming  miracles,  and  pretended  revelations,  (as  there  are 
many  examples,  especially  in  the  church  of  Rome,)  and  so  may  be 
shaken  in  the  faith,  if  they  keep  not  to  the  holy  Scriptures  as  their 
rule. 

We  are  told,  2  Thess.  xi.  9,  of  him  whose  coming  is  after  the 
wording  of  Satan,  with  all  power,  and  signs,  and  lying  wonders. 
And  Rev.  14,  xvi.  14,  and  six.  20,  of  the  devil,  and  false  prophets, 
working  miracles.  But  the  word,  in  all  these  places,  in  only  semeia, 
signs,  that  is,  as  it  is  rendered.  Matt.  xxv.  24,  which  though  some¬ 
times  it  may  be  used  to  signify  real  miracles,  yet  not  always,  nor  in 
these  places.  For  though  every  miracle  be  a  sign  and  a  wonder, 
yet  every  sign,  or  wonder,  is  not  a  miracle. 

IX.  Here  it  may  be  proper  to  consider  a  common  topic  of  the 
deists,  who,  when  they  are  not  able  to  stand  out  against  the  evi¬ 
dence  of  fact,  that  such  and  such  miracles  have  been  done ;  then 
turn  about  and  deny  such  things  to  be  miracles,  at  least,  that  we 
pn  never  be  sure  whether  any  wonderful  thing  that  is  shown  to  us 
be  a  true  or  a  false  miracle. 

And  the  great  argument  they  go  upon  is  this,  that  a  miracle  being 
that  which  exceeds  the  power  of  nature,  we  cannot  know  what  ex¬ 
ceeds  it,  unless  we  know  the  utmost  extent  of  the  power  of  nature; 
and  no  man  pretends  to  know'  that ;  therefore,  that  no  man  can  cer- 
tamly  know  whether  any  event  be  miraculous.  And,  consequently, 
he  may  be  cheated  in  his  j  udgment  between  true  and  false  miracles. 

1  o  which  I  answer,  that  men  may  be  so  cheated,  and  there  are 
many  examples  of  it. 

But  that  though  we  may  not  always  loiow  when  we  are  cheated, 
yet  we  can  certainly  tell,  in  many  cases,  when  we  are  not  cheated. 

4  or  though  we  do  not  know  the  utmost  extent  of  the  power  of 
nature,  perhaps,  in  any  one  thing ;  yet  it  does  not  follow,  that  we 
Know  not  the  nature  of  any  thing,  in  some  measure ;  and  that  cer¬ 
tainly  too.  For  example  ;  though  I  do  not  know  the  utmost  extent 
ot  the  power  of  fire,  yet  I  certainly  know,  that  it  is  the  nature  of 
nre  to  burn ;  and  that  when  proper  fuel  is  administered  to  it,  it  is 
contrary  to  the  nature  of  fire  not  to  consume  it.  Therefore,  if  I  see 
three  men  taken  off  the  street,  in  their  common  wearing  apparel, 
and  without  any  preparation  cast  into  the  midst  of  a  burning  fiery 
urnace ;  and  that  the  flame  was  so  fierce,  that  it  burnt  up  those 
men  that  threw  them  in ;  and  yet  that  those  who  were  thrown  in, 
should  walk  up  and  down  in  the  bottom  of  the  furnace,  and  I  should 
fourth  person  with  them  of  glorious  appearance  like  the  Son 
01  Lrod ;  and  that  these  men  should  come  up  again  out  of  the  fur¬ 
nace  without  any  harm,  or  so  much  as  the  smell  of  fire  upon  them¬ 
selves,  or  their  clothes,  I  could  not  be  deceived  in  thinking  that 
^®fop  put  to  the  nature  of  fire,  as  to  these  men ;  and  that 
It  had  its  effect  upon  the  men  whom  it  burnt  at  the  same  time. 

Agam,  though  I  cannot  tell  how  wonderful  and  sudden  an  in¬ 
crease  of  com  might  be  produced  by  the  concurrence  of  many 
causes,  as  a  warm  climate,  the  fertility  of  the  soil,  &c.  ,•  yet  this  I 
can  certainly  know,  that  there  is  not  that  natural  force  in  the  breath 


248  Leslie's  Method 

of  two  or  three  words  spoken  to  multiply  one  small  loaf  of  bread  so 
fast,  in  the  breaking  of  it,  as  truly  and  really,  not  only  in  appearance 
and  show  to  the  eye,  but  to  nil  the  bellies  of  several  thousand 
hungry  persons ;  and  that  the  fragments  should  be  much  more  than 
the  bread  was  at  first. 

So  neither  in  a  word  spoken,  to  raise  the  dead,  cure  diseases,  &c. 
Therefore,  though  we  know  not  the  utmost  extent  of  the  power 
of  nature ;  yet  we  can  certainly  know  what  is  contrary  to  the  nature 
of  several  such  things  as  we  do  know'. 

And  therefore,  though  we  may  be  cheated  and  imposed  upon  in 
many  seeming  miracles  and  wonders,  yet  there  are  some  things 

wherein  we  may  be  certain.  ,  .  , 

But  farther,  the  deists  acknowledge  a  God,  of  an  almighty  power, 
who  made  all  things;  yet  they  w'ould  put  it  out  of  his  power  to 
make  any  revelation  of  his  will  to  mankind.  F or  if  we  cannot  be 
certain  of  any  miracle,  how  should  we  know  when  God  sent  any 
thing  extraordinary  to  us  ? 

Nay,  how  should  we  know  the  ordinary  power  ot  nature,  il  we 
know  not  what  exceeded  it  ?  If  we  know  not  what  is  natural,  how 
do  we  know  there  is  such  a  thing  as  nature?  That  all  is  not  supm- 
natural,  all  miracles,  and  so  disputable,  till  we  come  to  dovrarignt 
scepticism,  and  doubt  the  certainty  of  our  outward  senses,  whether 
we  see,  hear,  or  feel ;  or  all  be  not  a  miraculous  illusion ! 

Which,  because  I  know  the  deists  are  not  inclined  to  do,  therelore 
I  will  return  to  pursue  my  argument  upon  the  conviction  of  our 
outward  senses,  desiring  only  this,  that  they  would  allow  the  senses 
of  other  men  to  be  as  certain  as  their  own.  Which  they  cannot 
refuse,  since  without  this,  they  can  have  no  certainty  of  their  own. 

X.  Therefore,  from  what  has  been  said,  the  cause  is  summed  up 
shortly  in  this,  that  though  we  cannot  see  what  was  done  belore 
our  time,  yet  by  the  marks  which  I  have  laid  down  concerning 
the  certainty  of  matters  of  fact  done  before  our  time,  we  may  be 
as  much  assured  of  the  truth  of  them,  as  if  we  saw  mem  witfi 
our  eyes ;  because  whatever  matter  of  fact  has  all  the  four  rnar  s 
before  mentioned,  could  never  have  been  invented  and  received, 
but  upon  the  conviction  of  the  outward  senses  of  ml  those  who 
did  receive  it,  as  before  is  demonstrated.  And  therefore  ttm  topic 
which  1  have  chosen  does  stand  upon  the  conviction  even  ot  men  s 
outward  senses.  And  since  you  haye  confined  me  to  one  topic,  1 
have  not  insisted  upon  the  other,  which  I  have  only  named. 

XI.  And  it  now  lies  upon  the  deists,  if  they  would  appear  as  men 
of  reason,  to  show  some  matter  of  fact  of  former  ages,  which  they 
allow  to  be  true,  that  has  greater  evidence  of  its  truth,  than  tho 
matters  of  fact  of  Moses  and  of  Christ:  otherwise  they  cannot,  with 
any  show  of  reason,  reject  the  one,  and  yet  admit  oi  the  other. 

But  I  have  given  them  greater  latitude  than  this;  for  1  have 
shown  such  marks  of  the  truth  of  the  matters  of  fact  of  Moses  and 
of  Christ,  as  no  other  matters  of  fact  of  those  times,  however  true, 
have,  but  these  only :  and  I  put  it  upon  them  to  show  any  forgery 
that  has  all  these  marks. 


with  the  Deists.  249 

This  is  a  short  issue.  Keep  them  close  to  this.  Tliis  determines 
the  cause  all  at  once. 

Let  them  produce  their  Apollonius  Tyan®us,  whose  life  was  put 
the  execrable  Charles  Blount,*  and  compared  with 
all  the  wit  and  malice  he  was  master  of,  to  the  life  and  miracles  of 
our  blessed  Saviour.  Let  them  take  aid  from  all  the  legends  of  the 
church  of  Rome,  those  pious  cheats,  the  sorest  disgraces  in  Chris¬ 
tianity  ;  and  which  have  bid  the  fairest  of  any  one  contrivance  to 
overturn  the  certainty  of  the  miracles  of  Christ,  and  his  apostles, 
and  the  whole  truth  of  the  gospel,  by  putting  them  all  upon  the 
same  foot ;  at  least,  they  are  so  understood  by  the  generality  of  their 
devotees,  though  disowned  and  laughed  at  by  the  learned,  and  men 
of  sense  among  them. 

Let  them  pick  and  choose  the  most  probable  of  all  the  fables  of 
me  heathen  deities,  and  see  if  they  can  find  in  any  of  these,  the 
lour  marks  before  mentioned. 

Otherwise  let  them  submit  to  the  irrefragable  certainty  of  the 
Christian  religion. 

XII.  But  if,  notwithstanding  all  that  is  said,  the  deists  will  still 
contend,  that  all  this  is  but  priestcraft,  the  invention  of  priests,  for 
thmr  own  profit,  &c.,  then  they  will  give  us  an  idea  of  priests,  far 
dinerent  from  what  they  intend :  for  then,  we  must  look  upon  these 
priests,  not  only  as  the  cunningest  and  wisest  of  mankind,  but  we 
shall  be  tempted  to  adore  them  as  deities,  who  have  such  power,  as 
to  impose,  at  their  pleasure,  upon  the  senses  of  mankind,  to  make 
thein  telieve,  that  they  had  practised  such  public  institutions,  en¬ 
acted  them  by  laws,  taught  them  to  their  children,  &c.,  when  they 
fmd  never  done  any  of  these  things,  or  even  so  much  as  heard  of 
them  before :  and  then,  upon  the  credit  of  their  believing  that  they 
had  done  such  things  as  they  never  did,  to  make  them  farther 
believ^  upon  the  same  foundation,  whatever  they  pleased  to  impose 
upon  them,  as  to  former  ages :  I  say,  such  a  power  as  this,  must 
exceed  all  that  is  human ;  and  consequently,  make  us  rank  these 
priests  far  above  the  condition  of  mortals. 

2.  Nay^  were  to  make  them  outdo  all  that  has  ever  been 
related  of  the  infernal  powers;  for  though  their  legerdemain  had 
extended  to  deceive  some  unwary  beholders ;  and  their  power  of 
working  some  seeming  miracles  has  been  great,  yet  it  never  reached, 


*  The  hand  of  that  scorner,  which  durst  write  such  outrageous  blas¬ 
phemy  against  his  Maker,  the  divine  vengeance  has  made  his  own  exe¬ 
cutioner.  This  I  would  not  have  mentioned,  (because  the  like  judgment 
has  befallen  others,)  but  that  the  Theistical  Club  have  set  this  up  as  a 
principle;  and  printed  a  vindication  of  this  same  Blount  for  murdering 
himself,  by  way  of  justification  of  self-murder.  Which  some  of  them 
have  since  as  well  as  formerly,  horribly  practised  upon  themselves, 
ineretore  this  is  no  common  judgment  to  which  they  are  delivered,  but 
visible  mark  set  upon  them,  to  show  how  far  God  has  forsaken  them  • 
and  as  a  caution  to  alt  Christians,  to  beware  of  them,  and  not  to  come 
bofh  of  of  these  wicked  men,  lest  they  perish  in  their  destruction, 


250 


heslie’s  Method 


or  ever  was  supposed  to  reach  so  far,  as  to  deceive  the  senses  of  all 
mankind  in  matters  of  such  public  and  notorious  nature  as  those  of 
which  we  now  speak,  to  make  them  believe,  that  they  had  enacted 
laws  for  such  public  observances,  continually  practised  them,  taught 
them  to  their  children,  and  had  been  instructed  in  them  themselves 
from  their  childhood,  if  they  had  never  enacted,  practised,  taught,  or 

been  taught  such  things.  ^ ,  n  j  j  i 

3.  And  as  this  exceeds  all  the  power  of  hell  and  devils,  so  is  it 

more  than  ever  God  Almighty  has  done  since  the  foundation  oi  the 
world.  None  of  the  miracles  that  he  has  showm,  or  belief  which 
he  has  required  to  any  thing  that  he  has  reyealed,  has  ever  contra¬ 
dicted  the  outward  senses  of  any  one  man  in  the  world,  much  less 
of  all  mankind  together.  For  miracles  being  appeals  to  our  outward 
senses,  if  they  should  overthrow  the  certainty  of  our  outward  senses, 
must  destroy,  with  it,  all  their  own  certainty  as  to  us;  since  we  have 
no  other  w'ay  to  judge  of  a  miracle  exhibited  to  our  senses,  than  upon 
the  supposition  of  the  certainty  of  our  senses,  upon  which  we  give 
credit  to  a  miracle  that  is  shown  to  our  senses.  , 

4.  This,  by  the  way,  is  a  yet  unanswered  argument  agamst  the 
miracle  of  transubstantiation,  and  shows  the  weaknessof  the  defence 
which  the  church  of  Rome  offers  for  it,  (from  whom  the  Socinians 
have  licked  it  up,  and  of  late,  have  gloried  much  in  it  among  us,) 
that  the  doctrines  of  the  trinity  or  incarnation  contain  as  great  seein- 
ing  absurdities  as  that  of  transubstantiation.  For  I  would  ask,  which 
of  our  senses  it  is  which  the  doctrines  of  the  trinity  or  incarnation 
do  contradict?  Is  it  our  seeing,  hearing,  feeling,  taste,  or  smefl  ? 
whereas  transubstantiation  does  contradict  all  of  these.  1  h^e  oi  e 
the  comparison  is  exceeding  short,  and  out  of  purpose.  But  to 

If  the  Christian  religion  be  a  cheat,  and  nothing  else  but  the  in¬ 
vention  of  priests,  and  carried  on  by  their  craft,  it  makes  their  power 
and  wisdom  greater  than  that  of  men,  angels,  or  devils ;  and  more 
than  God  himself  ever  yet  showed  or  expressed,  to  deceive  and 
impose  upon  the  senses  of  mankind,  in  such  public  and  notorious 

matters  of  fact.  ,  ,  . 

XIII.  And  this  miracle,  which  the  deists  must  run  into  to  avoid 

these  recorded  of  Moses  and  Christ,  is  much  greater,  and  more  as¬ 
tonishing,  than  all  the  Scriptures  tell  of  them. 

So  thlt  these  men  who  laugh  at  all  miracles,  are  now  obliged  to 
account  for  the  greatest  of  all,  how  the  senses  of  mankmd  could  be 
imposed  upon  in  such  public  matters  of  fact. 

And  how  then  can  they  make  the  priests  the  most  contemptible 
of  all  mankind,  since  they  make  them  the  sole  authors  of  this  the 
greatest  of  miracles  ? 

XIV.  And  since  the  deists  (these  men  of  sense  and  reason)  ha\  e 

so  vile  and  mean  an  idea  of  the  priests  of  all  religions,  why  do  they 
not  recover  the  world  out  of  the  possession  and  . 

blockheads  ?  Why  do  they  suffer  kings  and  states  to  be  led  by 

to  establish  their  deceits  by  laws,  and  inflict  penalties  upon  the  op 
posers  of  them  ?  Let  the-  deists  try  their  hands ;  they  have  been 


with  the  Deists. 


251 

trying,  and  are  now  busy  about  it.  And  free  liberty  they  have.  Yet 
they  have  not  prevailed,  nor  ever  yet  did  prevail  in  any  civilized 
or  generous  nation.  And  though  they  have  some  inroads  among 
the  Hottentots,  and  some  other  the  most  brutal  part  of  mankind,  yet 
are  they  still  exploded,  and  priests  have  and  do  prevail  against 
them,  among  not  only  the  greatest,  but  best  part  of  the  world,  and 
the  most  glorious  for  arts,  learning,  and  war. 

XV.  For  as  the  devil  does  ape  God,  in  his  institutions  of  religion, 
his  feasts  and  sacrifices,  &c.,  so  likewise  in  his  priests,  without 
whom,  no  rehgion,  whether  true  or  false,  can  stand.  False  religion 
is  but  a  corruption  of  the  true.  The  true  was  before  it,  though  it 
be  followed  close  upon  the  heels. 

The  revelation  made  to  Moses  is  older  than  any  history  extant  in 
the  heathen  world.  The  heathens,  in  imitation  of  him,  pretended 
likewise  to  their  revelations ;  but  I  have  given  those  marks  which 
distinguish  them  from  the  true :  none  of  them  have  those  four 
marks  before  mentioned. 

Now  the  deists  think  all  revelations  to  be  equally  pretended  and 
a  cheat ;  and  the  priests  of  all  religions  to  be  the  same  contrivers 
and  jugglers ;  and  therefore  they  proclaim  war  equally  against  all, 
and  are  equally  engaged  to  bear  the  brunt  of  all. 

And  if  the  contest  be  only  between  the  deists  and  the  priests, 
which  of  them  are  the  men  of  the  greatest  parts  and  sense,  let  the 
effects  determine  it ;  and  let  the  deists  yield  the  victory  to  their 
conquerors,  who  by  their  own  confession  carry  all  the  world  before 
them. 

XVI.  If  the  deists  say,  that  this  is  because  all  the  world  are  block¬ 
heads,  as  well  as  those  priests  who  govern  them ;  that  all  are  block¬ 
heads  except  the  deists,  who  vote  themselves  only  to  be  men  of 
sense :  this  (besides  the  modesty  of  it)  will  spoil  their  great  and  be¬ 
loved  topic,  in  behalf  of  what  they  call  natural  religion,  against  the 
revealed,  viz.  appealing  to  the  common  reason  of  mankind.  This 
they  set  up  against  revelation ;  think  this  to  be  sufficient  for  all 
the  uses  of  men,  here  or  hereafter,  (if  there  be  any  after  state,)  and 
therefore  tliat  there  is  no  use  of  revelation ;  this  common  reason 
they  advance  as  infalhble,  at  least,  as  the  surest  guide,  yet  now  cry 
out  upon  it,  when  it  turns  against  them ;  when  this  common  reason 
tyns  after  revelation,  (as  it  always  has  done,)  then  common  reason 
is  a  beast,  and  we  must  look  for  reason,  not  from  the  common  senti¬ 
ments  of  mankind,  but  only  among  the  beaux,  the  deists. 

XVII.  Therefore  if  the  deists  would  avoid  the  mortification 
(which  w-ould  be  very  uneasy  to  them)  to  yield  and  submit  to  be  sub¬ 
dued  and  hewed  down  before  the  priests,  whom  of  all  mankind  they 
hate  and  despise ;  if  they  would  avoid  this,  let  them  confess  as  the 
truth  is.  That  religion  is  no  invention  of  priests,  but  of  divine  original  : 
that  priests  were  instituted  by  the  same  author  of  religion ;  and 
^at  their  order  is  a  perpetual  and  living  monument  of  the  matters 
of  fact  of  their  religion,  instituted  from  the  time  that  such  matters 
of  fact  were  said  to  be  done,  as  the  Levites  from  Moses ;  the  apos¬ 
tles,  and  succeeding  clergy,  from  Christ,  to  this  day.  That  no  he-a- 


252  Leslie's  Method  with  the  Deists. 

then  priests  can  say  the  same :  they  were  not  appointed  by  the  pds 
wtomZy  served  but  by  others  in  after  ayes :  they  cannot  smd 
the  test  of  the  four  rules  before  mentioned,  which  the  Christian 
priests  can  do,  and  they  only.  Now  the  Christian  f  in- 

Situted  by  Christ  himself,  and  continued  by 

being  as  impregnable  and  flagrant  a  testimony  to  ^^h  of  the 
matters  of  fact  of  Christ,  as  the  sacraments,  or  any  Piblic  m 

stitutions:  besides  that,  if  the  priesthood  were  ^ 

sacraments,  and  other  public  institutions,  ^hich  are  admimstered 
by  their  hands,  must  fall  with  them :  therefore  the  devil  has  been 
most  busy,  and  bent  his  greatest  force,  in  all  ages,  against  the 
priesthood,  knowing,  that  if  that  goes  down,  all  A  ;  .  ^ 

^  XVIII.  And  now,  last  of  all,  if  one  word  of  advice  would  not  b 

lost  upon  men  who  think  so  unmeasurably  of  themselves,  as  the 

deists  vou  may  represent  to  them,  what  a  condition  they  are  in, 
who  iend  that  life  and  sense,  which  God  has  given  them,  ri  i- 
culing^ the  greatest  of  his  blessings,  his  revelations 
Christ  to  redeem  those  from  eternal  misery,  who  shall  Relieve  m 
him  and  obey  his  laws.  And  that  God,  in  his  wonderful  nie  y 
and  wisdom,  has  so  guarded  his  revelations,  as  that  it  is  past  the 
power  of  men  or  devils  to  counterfeit;  and  that  there  is  no  denying 
Sf  them,  unless  we  will  be  so  absurd,  as  to  deny  not  only  the  reason, 
but  the  certainty  of  the  outward  seizes,  not  only  of  one,  or 
three,  but  of  mankind  in  general.  That  this  case  is  so  ^eiy  plain, 
that  nothing  but  want  of  thought  can  hinder  any  to  discover  it. 
ThL  they  must  yield  it  to  be  so  plain,  unless  they  can  s^ow  s^e 
forgery,  which  hL  all  the  four  marks  before  set  down.  But  if  thgr 
cahnot  do  this,  they  must  quit  their  cause,  and  y;f\d  a  h^PY  vie 
tory  over  themselves ;  or  else  sit  down  under  all  that 
wife  which  they  have  loaded  the  priests,  of  being,  not  only  the 
most  pernicious,  ^ut  (what  will  gall  them  more)  the  most  inconside¬ 
rate,  and  inconsiderable  of  mankmd.  wnrtbi- 

Therefore,  let  them  not  think  it  an  undervaluing  of  their  worthi 
ness,  that  their  whole  cause  is  comprised  within  so  narrow  a  com¬ 
pass  :  and  no  more  time  bestowed  upon  it  than  it  is  worth. 

^  But  let  them,  rather,  refl^ect,  how  far  they  have  aU 

time  from  Christianity;  whose  rudiments  they  are  yet  to  learn. 
How  fer  from  the  way  of  salvation  !  How  far 

is  run  before  they  have  set  one  step  in  the  road  to  heaven.  Ana 
therefore  how  much  diligence  they  ought  to  use  ^ 
time  they  have  lost,  lest  they  lose  themselves  for  ever,  ^d  be  gm 
vinced,  by  a  dreadful  experience,  when  it  is  too  late,  that  the  Cos 
pel  is  a  truth,  and  of  the  last  consequence. 


THE  END. 


THE 


EVIDENCES 

OF 

CHRISTIANITY. 


BY 

ALEXANDER,  WATSON, 
JENYNS,  LESLIE,  AND  PALEY. 


IN  TWO  VOLUMES. 

VOL.  TL 


PUBLISHED  BY 

JAMES  KAY,  JUN.  AND  BROTHER,  PHILADELPHIA 
122  Chestnut  Street — near  4th. 


PITTSBURGH :  C.  H.  KAY  &  CO. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1831,  by  James 
Kay  Jun.  &  Co.  in  the  Clerk’s  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United 
States  in  and  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


4 


STEREOTYPED  BY  J.  HOWE. 


A  VIEW 


OP 

THE  EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

.  / 

IN  THREE  PARTS. 

BY 

WILLIAM  PALEY,  1).  D. 

archdeacon  of  CARLISHE- 


9 


CONTENTS 


OF 

PALEY’S  EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


Preparatory 
cles . 


Considerations.— Of  the  antecedent  credibility  of  mira- 

. . . .  Page  15 


PART  I. 


OF  THE  DIKECT  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  OF  CHRISTIANITY,  AND  WHEREIN 
IT  IS  DISTIN3D1SHED  FROM  THE  EVIDENCE  ALLEGED  FOR  OTHER 
MIRACLES . 


PROPOSITION  I. 


That  there  is  satisfactory  evidence,  that  many,  professing  to  be 
original  witnesses  of  the  Christian  miracles,  passed  their  lives  in 
labors,  dangers,  and  sufferings  voluntarily  undergone  in  attesta¬ 
tion  of  the  accounts  which  they  delivered,  and  solely  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  their  belief  of  those  accounts ;  and  that  they  also  sub¬ 
mitted,  from  the  same  motives,  to  new  rules  of  conduct . 

CHAP.  I. — Evidence  of  the  sufferings  of  the  first  propagators  of 

Christianity,  from  the  nature  of  the  case . 

CHAP.  II.— Evidence  of  the  sufferings  of  the  first  propagators  of 

Christianity,  from  Profane  testimony . 

CHAP.  III. — Indirect  evidence  of  the  sufferings  of  the  first  propaga¬ 
tors  of  Christianity  from  the  Scriptures  and  other  ancient  Christian 

writings . . 

CHAP.  IV. — Direct  evidence  of  the  same . 

CHAP.  V.— Observations  on  the  preceding  evidence . .  • 

CHAP.  VI. — That  the  story,  for  which  the  first  propagators  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  suffered,  was  miraculous . . . 

CHAP.  VII.— That  it  was,  in  the  main,  the  story  which  we  have 

now  proved,  by  indirect  considerations . . . . 

CHAP.  VIII. _ The  same  proved,  from  the  authority  of  our  historical 

Scriptures . . . . . . 

CHAP.  IX.— Of  the  authenticity  of  the  historical  Scriptures . 


20 


ib. 


27 


31 

34 

43 

47 

49 

58 

67 


CONTENTS. 


Sect.  L— Quotations  of  the  historical  Scriptures  by  ancient 
Christian  writers  . 

Sect.  II.  Of  the  pecuJiar  respect  with  which  they  were  quoted  87 

Sect.  Ill._The  Scriptures  were  in  very  early  times  collected 
into  a  distinct  volume  .  gg 

Sect.  IV.— And  distinguished  by  appropriate  names  and  titles 
of  respect .  ^2 

Sect.  V.— Were  publicly  read  and  expounded  in  the  religious 
assemblies  of  the  early  Christians .  93 

Sect.  VI.— Commentaries,  &;c.  were  anciently  written  upon  the 
Scriptures .  g^ 

Sect.  VII.— They  were  received  by  ancient  Christians  of  differ¬ 


ent  sects  and  persuasions .  g0 

Sect.  VIII.— The  four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  thir¬ 
teen  Epistles  of  Saint  Paul,  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  and  the 
First  of  Peter,  were  received  without  doubt  by  those  who 

doubted  concerning  the  other  books  of  our  present  canon . 103 

Sect.  IX.  Our  present  Gospels  were  considered  by  the  adversa¬ 
ries  of  Christianity,  as  containing  the  accounts  upon  which 
the  religion  was  founded . . 

Sect.  X.— Formal  catalogues  of  authentic  Scriptures  were  pub¬ 
lished,  in  all  which  our  present  Gospels  were  included .  109 

Sect.  XI.— The  above  propositions  cannot  be  predicated  of  any 
of  those  books  which  are  commonly  called  apocryphal  books 

of  the  New  Testament . . . 22^ 

CHAP.  X.— Recapitulation . *  224 


PROPOSITION  II.  , 


That  there  is  not  satisfactory  evidence,  that  persons  pretending  to 
be  original  witnesses  of  any  other  similar  miracles,  have  acted  in 
the  same  manner,  in  attestation  of  the  accounts  which  they  de¬ 
livered,  and  solely  in  consequence  of  their  belief  of  the  truth  of 

those  accounts . . . 

CHAP.  I . . 

CHAP.  II . . 


117 

ib. 

129 


PART  ir. 

the  auxiliary  evidences  of  CHRISTIANITY. 

CHAP.  I. — Prophecy . 

CHAP.  lL_The  morality  of  the  Gospel . 

CHAP.  III.— The  candor  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 


CONTENTS 


CHAP.  TV— Identity  of  Christ’s  character . .  167 

CHAP.  V.—Orig-inaZity  of  Christ’s  character . .  175 

CHAP.  \L— Conformity  of  the  facts  occasionally  mentioned  or  re¬ 
ferred  to  in  Scripture,  with  the  state  of  things  in  those'  times,  as 

represented  by  foreign  and  independent  accounts .  176 

CHAP.  VII. — Undesigned  Coincidences .  195 

CHAP.  VIII.— Of  the  History  of  the  Resurrection .  197 

CHAP.  IX. — Of  the  Propagation  of  Christianity .  199 

Sect.  I.— In  what  degree,  within  what  time,  and  to  what  extent 

Christianity  was  actually  propagated . . 200 

‘  Sect  II. — Reflections  upon  the  preceding  Account . 211 

Sect.  HI.— Of  the  success  of  Mahometanism . 216 


PART  III. 

A  BRIEF  CONSIDERATION  OF  SOME  POPULAR  OBJECTIONS. 

CHAP.  I.— The  Discrepancies  between  the  several  Gospels . 225 

CHAP.  11.— Erroneous  Opinions  imputed  to  the  Apostles .  227 

CHAP.  III. — The  connexion  of  Christianity  with  the  Jewish  History  230 

CHAP.  IV. — Rejection  of  Christianity .  232 

CHAP.  V.— That  the  Christian  miracles  are  not  recited,  or  appealed 
to  by  early  Christian  writers  themselves  so  fully  or  frequently  as 

might  have  been  expected . .  241 

CHAP.  VI. — Want  of  universality  in  the  knowledge  and  reception 

of  Christianity,  and  of  greater  clearness  in  the  evidence . 246 

CHAP.  VII. — The  supposed  Effects  of  Christianity . 251 

CHAP.  VIII.  Conclusion . ■ .  255 


B 


A  VIEW 


OF 


THE  EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


PREPARATORY  CONSIDERATIONS. 

I  DEEM  it  unnecessary  to  prove,  that  mankind  stood  in  need  of  a 
revelation,  because  I  have  met  with  no  serious  person  who  thinks 
that,  even  under  the  Christian  revelation,  we  have  too  much  light, 
or  any  degree  of  assurance,  which  is  superfluous.  I  desire,  more¬ 
over,  that  in  judging  of  Christianity,  it  may  be  remembered,  that 
the  question  lies  between  this  religion  and  none :  for  if  the  Chris¬ 
tian  religion  be  not  credible,  no  one,  with  whom  we  have  to  do,  will 
support  the  pretensions  of  any  other. 

Suppose,  then,  the  world  we  live  in  to  have  had  a  Creator ;  sup¬ 
pose  it  to  appear,  from  the  predominant  aim  and  tendency  of  the 
provisions  and  contrivances  observable  in  the  universe,  that  the 
Deity,  when  he  formed  it,  consulted  for  the  happiness  of  his  sensi¬ 
tive  creation;  suppose  the  disposition  which  dictated  this  counsel  to 
continue ;  suppose  a  part  of  the  creation  to  have  received  faculties 
from  their  Maker,  by  which  they  are  capable  of  rendering  a  moral 
obedience  to  his  will,  and  of  voluntarily  pursuing  any  end  for  which 
he  has  designed  them ;  suppose  the  Creator  to  intend  for  these,  his 
rational  and  accountable  agents,  a  second  state  of  existence,  in 
which  their  situation  will  be  regulated  by  their  behavior  in  the  first 
state,  by  which  supposition  (and  by  no  other)  the  objection  to  the 
divine  government  in  not  putting  a  difference  between  the  good  and 
me  bad,  and  the  inconsistency  of  this  confusion  with  the  care  and 
benevolence  discoverable  in  the  works  of  the  Deity,  is  done  away ; 
suppose  it  to  be  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  subjects  of  this  dis¬ 
pensation  to  know  what  is  intended  for  them ;  that  is,  suppose  the 
knowledge  of  it  to  be  highly  conducive  to  the  happiness  of  the 
species,  a  purpose  which  so  many  provisions  of  nature  are  calcu¬ 
lated  to  promote;  suppose,  nevertheless,  almost  the  whole  race, 
either  by  the  imperfection  of  their  faculties,  the  misfortune  of  their 
situation,  or  by  the  loss  of  some  prior  revelation,  to  want  this  know¬ 
ledge,  and  not  to  be  likely  without  the  aid  of  a  new  revelation  to 
attain  it : — ^under  these  circumstances,  is  it  improbable  that  a  reve¬ 
lation  should  be  made  ?  is  it  incredible  that  God  should  interpose  for 
such  a  purpose  ?  Suppose  him  to  design  for  mankind  a  future  state ; 
IS  It  unlikely  that  he  should  acquaint  him  with  it  ? 


15 


•6 


Paley's  View  of  the 


Of  the  antecedent  Credibility  of  Miracles. 

Now  in  what  way  can  a  revelation  be  made  but  by  miracles?  In 
none  which  we  are  able  to  conceive.  Consequently  in  whatever 
degree  it  is  probable,  or  not  very  improbable,  that  a  revelation 
should  be  communicated  to  mankind  at  all ;  in  the  same  degree  is 
it  probable,  or  not  very  improbable,  that  miracles  should  be  wrought. 
Therefore  when  miracles  are  related  to  have  been  wrought  in  the 
promulgating  of  a  revelation  manifestly  w’anted,  and,  if  true,  of  in¬ 
estimable  value,  the  improbability  which  arises  from  the  miraculous 
nature  of  the  things  related,  is  no  greater  than  the  original  improba¬ 
bility  that  such  a  revelation  should  be  imparted  by  God. 

I  wish  it  however  to  be  correctly  understood,  in  what  manner, 
and  to  what  extent,  this  argument  is  alleged.  We  do  not  assume 
the  attributes  of  the  Deity,  or  the  existence  of  a  future  state,  in  or¬ 
der  to  prove  the  reL’ity  of  miracles.  The  reality  always  must  be 
proved  by  evidence.  W^e  assert  only  that  in  miracles  adduced  in 
support  of  revelation,  there  is  not  any  such  antecedent  improbability 
as  no  testimony  can  surmount.  And  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining 
this  assertion,  we  contend  that  the  incredibility  of  miracles  related 
to  have  been  wrought  in  attestation  of  a  message  from  God,  con- 
ve}ning  intelligence  of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments, 
and  teaching  mankind  how  to  prepare  themselves  for  that  state,  is 
not  in  itself  greater  than  the  event,  call  it  either  probable  or  im¬ 
probable,  of  the  two  following  propositions  being  true ;  namely, 
first,  that  a  future  state  of  existence  should  be  destined  by  God  lor 
his  human  creation ;  and,  secondly,  that  being  so  destined,  ho  should 
acquaint  them  with  it.  It  is  not  necessary  for  our  purpose,  that 
these  propositions  be  capable  of  proof,  or  even  that  by  arguments 
drawn  from  the  light  of  nature,  they  can  be  made  out  to  be  proba¬ 
ble  ;  it  is  enough  that  we  are  able  to  say  concerning  them,  that 
they  are  not  so  violently  improbable,  so  contradictory  to  what  we 
alrGady  beliove  of  tliG  divino  power  and  character,  that  either  the 
propositions  themselves,  or  facts  strictly  connected  with  the  proposi¬ 
tions  (and  therefore  no  farther  improbable  than  they  are  improbable), 
ought  to  be  rejected  at  first  sight,  and  to  be  rejected  by  whatever 
strength  or  complication  of  evidence  they  be  attested. 

This  is  the  prejudication  we  would  resist.  For  to  this  length  does 
a  modern  objection  to  miracles  go,  viz.  that  no  human  testimony  can 
in  any  case  render  them  credible.  I  think  the  reflection  above 
tated,  that  if  there  be  a  revelation,  there  must  be  miracles,  and 
hat  under  the  circumstances  in  which  the  human  species  are  placed, 
a  revelation  is  not  improbable,  or  not  improbable  in  any  great  de¬ 
gree,  to  be  a  fair  answer  to  the  vifoole  objection. 

But  since  it  is  an  objection  which  stands  in  the  very  threshold  oi 
our  argument,  and,  if  admitted,  is  a  bar  to  every  proof,  and  to  all 
future  reasoning  upon  the  subject,  it  may  be  necessary,  bmore  we 
proceed  farther,  to  examine  the  principle  upon  which  it  professes  to 
De  founded ;  which  principle  is  concisely  this,  That  it  is  contrary  to 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  17 

experience  that  a  miracle  should  be  true,  but  not  contrary  to  expe¬ 
rience  that  testimony  should  be  false. 

Now  there  appears  a  small  ambiguity  in  tbe  term  ‘  experience,’ 
and  in  the  phrases  ‘  contrary  to  experience,’  ur  ‘  contradicting  expe¬ 
rience,’  which  it  may  be  necessary  to  remove  in  the  first  place. 
Strictly  speaking,  the  narrative  of  a  fact  is  then  only  contrary  to  ex¬ 
perience,  when  the  fact  is  related  to  have  existed  at  a  time  and 
place,  at  which  time  and  place  we  being  present  did  not  perceive  it 
to  exist ;  as  if  it  should  be  asserted  that,  in  a  particular  room,  and  at 
a  particular  hour  of  a  certain  day,  a  man  was  raised  from  the  dead, 
in  which  room,  and  at  the  time  specified,  we  being  present,  and 
looking  on,  perceived  no  such  event  to  have  taken  place.  Here  the 
assertion  is  contrary  to  experience,  properly  so  called ;  and  this  is  a 
contrariety  which  no  evidence  can  surmount.  It  matters  nothing 
whether  the  fact  be  of  a  miraculous  nature  or  not.  But  although 
this  be  the  experience  and  the  contrariety,  which  archbishop  TilJot- 
son  alleged  in  the  quotation  with  which  Mr.  Hume  opens  his  essay, 
it  is  certainly  not  that  experience,  nor  that  contrariety,  which  Mr. 
Hume  himself  intended  to  object.  And  short  of  this,  I  know  no  in- 
telhgible  signification  which  can  be  affixed  to  the  term  ‘  contrary  to 
experience,’  but  one,  viz.  that  of  not  having  ourselves  experienced 
any  thing  similar  to  the  thing  related,  or  such  things  not  being  gene¬ 
rally  experienced  by  others.  I  say  '  not  generally :’  for  to  state  con¬ 
cerning  the  fact  in  question,  that  no  such  thing  was  ever  experienced, 
or  that  universal  experience  is  against  it,  is  to  assume  the  subject  of 
the  controversy. 

Now  the  improbability  which  arises  from  the  want  (for  this  prop¬ 
erly  is  a  want,  not  a  contradiction)  of  experience,  is  only  equal  to 
the  probability  there  is  that,  if  the  thing  were  true,  we  should  ex¬ 
perience  things  similar  to  it,  or  that  such  things  wmdd  be  generally 
experienced.  Suppose  it  then  to  be  true  that  miracles  were  wrought 
on  the  first  promulgation  of  Christianity,  when  nothing  but  miracles 
could  decide  its  authority,  is  it  certain  that  such  miracles  could  be 
repeated  so  often,  and  in  so  many  places,  as  to  become  objects  of 
general  experience  ?  Is  it  a  probability  approaching  to  certainty  ?  is 
it  a  probability  of  any  great  strengtn  or  force?  is  it  such  as  no 
evidence  can  encounter?  And  yet  this  probability  is  the  exact  con¬ 
verse,  and  therefore  the  exact  measure,  of  the  improbability  which 
arises  from  the  want  of  experience,  and  which  Mr.  Hume  represents 
as  invincible  by  human  testimony. 

It  is  not  like  alleging  a  new  law  of  nature,  or  a  new  experiment 
in  natural  philosophy ;  because  when  these  are  related,  it  is  ex¬ 
pected  that  under  the  same  circumstances,  the  same  effect  will  fol¬ 
low  universally ;  and  in  proportion  as  this  expectation  is  justly  en¬ 
tertained,  the  want  of  a  corresponding  experience  negatives  the 
histoiy.  But  to  expect  concerning  a  miracle,  that  it  should  succeed 
upon  a  repetition,  is  to  expect  that  which  would  make  it  cease  to  be 
a  miracle,  which  is  contrary  to  its  nature  as  such,  and  would  totally 
destroy  the  use  and  purpose  for  which  it  was  wrought. 

The  force  of  experience,  as  an  objection  to  miracles,  is  founded 

B2 


18  Paley^s  Vieio  of  the 

ill  the  presumption,  either  that  the  course  of  nature  is  invariable,  or 
that  if  it  be  ever  varied,  variations  will  be  frequent  and  general 
Has  the  necessity  of  this  alternative  been  demonstrated  ?  Permit  us 
to  call  the  course  of  nature  the  agency  of  an  intelligent  Being;  and 
IS  there  any  good  reason  for  judging  this  state  of  the  case  to  be 
probable  ?  Ought  we  not  rather  to  expect  that  such  a  Being,  on  oc¬ 
casions  of  peculiar  importance,  may  interrupt  the  order  which  he 
had  appointed,  yet  that  such  occasions  should  return  seldom ;  that 
these  interruptions  consequently  should  be  confined  to  the  expe¬ 
rience  of  a  few ;  that  the  want  of  it,  therefore,  in  many,  should  be 
matter  neither  of  surprise  nor  objection. 

But  as  a  continuation  of  die  argument  from  experience,  it  is  said 
that  when  we  advance  accounts  of  miracles,  we  assign  effects 
without  causes,  or  we  attribute  effects  to  causes  inadequate  to  the 
purpose,  or  to  causes  of  the  operation  of  which  we  have  no  expe¬ 
rience.  Of  what  causes,  we  may  ask,  and  of  what  effects  does  the 
objection  speak  ?  If  it  be  answered,  that  when  we  ascribe  the  cure 
of  the  palsy  to  a  touch,  of  blindness  to  the  anointing  of  the  eyes 
with  clay,  or  the  raising  of  the  dead  to  a  word,  we  lay  ourselves 
open  to  this  imputation ;  we  reply  that  we  ascribe  no  such  effects 
to  such  causes.  We  perceive  no  virtue  or  energy  in  these  things 
more  than  in  other  things  of  the  same  kind.  They  are  merely 
signs  to  connect  the  miracle  with  its  end.  The  effect  we  ascribe 
simply  to  the  volition  of  the  Deity ;  of  whose  existence  and  power, 
not  to  say  of  whose  presence  and  agency,  we  have  previous  and  in¬ 
dependent  proof.  We  have  therefore  all  we  seek  for  in  the  works 
of  rational  agents, — a  sufficient  power  and  an  adequate  motive.  In 
a  word,  once  believe  that  there  is  a  God,  and  miracles  are  not  in 
credible. 

Mr.  Hume  states  the  case  of  miracles  to  be  a  contest  of  opposite 
improbabilities ;  that  is  to  say,  a  question  whether  it  be  more  im¬ 
probable  that  the  miracle  should  be  true,  or  the  testimony  false : 
and  this  I  think  a  fair  account  of  the  controversy.  But  herein  I  re¬ 
mark  a  want  of  argumentative  justice,  that,  in  describing  the  im¬ 
probability  of  miracles,  he  suppresses  all  those  circumstances  cf 
extenuation  which  result  from  our  knowledge  of  the  existence, 
power,  and  disposition  of  the  Deity ;  his  concern  in  the  creation,  the 
end  answered  by  the  miracle,  the  importance  of  that  end,  and  its 
subserviency  to  the  plan  pursued  in  the  work  of  nature.  As  Mr. 
Hume  has  represented  the  question,  miracles  are  alike  incredible  to 
him  who  is  previously  assured  of  the  constant  agency  of  a  Divine 
Being,  and  to  him  who  believes  that  no  such  Being  exists  in  the 
universe.  They  are  equally  incredible,  whether  related  to  have 
been  wrought  upon  occasions  the  most  deserving,  and  for  purposes 
the  most  beneficial,  or  for  no  assignable  end  whatever,  or  for  an 
end  confessedly  trifling  or  pernicious.  This  surely  cannot  be  a  cor¬ 
rect  statement.  In  adjusting  also  the  other  side  of  the  balance,  the 
strength  and  weight  of  testimony,  this  author  has  provided  an  an¬ 
swer  to  evgry  possible  accumulation  of  historical  proof,  by  telling  us, 
that  we  are  not  obliged  to  explain  how  the  story  of  the  evidence  arose. 


Evidence  of  Christianity.  19 

Now  I  think  that  we  are  obliged ;  not,  perhaps,  to  show  by  positive 
accounts  how  it  did,  but  by  a  probable  hypothesis  how  it  might,  so 
happen.  The  existence  of  the  testimony  is  a  phenomenon ;  the 
truth  of^the  fact  solves  the  phenomenon.  If  we  reject  this  solution, 
w  e  ought  to  have  some  other  to  rest  in ;  and  none,  even  by  our  ad¬ 
versaries,  can  be  admitted,  which  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  prin- 
ciples  that  regulate  human  affairs  and  human  conduct  at  present,  or 
\\hich  makes  men  then  to  have  been  a  different  kind  of  beings  from 
what  they  are  now. 

But  the  short  consideration  which,  independently  of  every  other, 
convinces  me  that  there  is  no  solid  foundation  in  Mr.  Hume’s  con¬ 
clusion,  IS  the  following.  When  a  theorem  is  proposed  to  a  mathe¬ 
matician,  the  first  thing  he  does  with  it  is  to  try  it  upon  a  simple 
case,  and  if  it  produce  a  false  result,  he  is  sure  that  there  must  be 
some  mistake  in  the  demonstration.  Now  to  proceed  in  this  way 
with  what  may  be  called  Mr.  Hume’s  theorem.  If  twelve  men, 
whose  probity  and  good  sense  I  had  long  known,  should  seriously 
and  circumstantially  relate  to  me  an  account  of  a  miracle  wrought 
before  their  eyes,  and  in  which  it  was  impossible  that  they  should 
deceived;  if  the  governor  of  the  country,  hearing  a  rumor  of 
this  account,  should  call  these  men  into  his  presence,  and  offer  them 
a  short  proposal,  either  to  confess  the  imposture,  or  submit  to  be  tied 
up  to  a  gibliet ;  if  they  should  refuse  with  one  voice  to  acknowledge 
that  there  existed  any  falsehood  or  imposture  in  the  case ;  if  this 
t^.eat  vyere  communicated  to  them  separately,  yet  with  no  different 
effect;  if  it  was  at  last  executed  ;  if  I  myself  saw  them,  one  after 
another,  consenting  to  be  racked,  burnt,  or  strangled,  rather  than 
give  up  the  truth  of  their  account;  still,  if  Mr.  Hume’s  rule  be  mj? 
^nde,  I  am  not  to  believe  them.  Now  I  undertake  to  say,  that 
there  exists  not  a  sceptic  in  the  world  who  would  not  believe  them, 
or  who  would  defend  such  incredulity. 

Instances  of  spurious  miracles,  supported  by  strong  apparent  tes¬ 
timony,  undoubtedly  demand  examination  ;  Mr.  Hume  has  endea¬ 
vored  to  fortify  his  argument  by  some  examples  of  this  kind.  I  hope 
m  a  proper  place  to  show',  that  none  of  them  reach  the  strength  or 
circumstances  of  tlie  Christian  evidence.  In  these,  how'ever,  con¬ 
sists  the  weight  of  his  objection ;  in  the  principle  itself,  I  am  per¬ 
suaded,  there  is  none. 


PART  I. 

OF  THE  DIRECT  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  AND 
WHEREIN  IT  IS  DISTINGUISHED  FROM  THE  EVIDENCE  ALLEGED 
FOR  OTHER  MIRACLES. 

The  two  propositions  which  I  shall  endeavor  to  establish  are 
these : 

I*.  That  there  is  satisfactory  evidence  that  many,  professing  to  be 
original  witnesses  of  the  Christian  miracles,  passed  their  lives  in 


20  Paley^s  View  of  the 

labors,  dangers,  and  sufferings,  voluntarily  undergone  in  attestation 
of  the  accounts  which  they  delivered,  and  solely  in  consequence  oi 
their  belief  of  those  accounts;  and  that  they  also  submitted,  trora 
the  same  motives,  to  new  rules  of  conduct. 

II.  That  there  is  not  satisfactory  evidence,  that  persons  proiessing 
to  be  original  witnesses  of  other  miracles,  in  their  nature  as  certain 
as  these  are,  have  ever  acted  in  the  same  manner,  in  attestation  ot 
the  accounts  which  they  delivered,  and  properly  in  consequence 
of  their  belief  of  these  accounts.  .  ^  ,  ,  -n 

The  first  of  these  propositions,  as  it  forms  the  argument,  will  stana 
at  the  head  of  the  following  nine  chapters. 

PROPOSITION  I. 

‘  There  is  satisfactory  evidence  that  many,  professing  to  he  original  wit¬ 
nesses  to  the  Christian  miracles,  passed  their  lives  in  labors,  dangers,  and 
sufferings,  voluntarily  undergone  in  attestation  of  the  accounts  '•^tiicf 
th%  delivered,  and  solely  in  consequence  of  their  belief  of  ' 

and  that  they  also  submitted,  from  the  same  motives,  to  new  rules  of  con- 

duct.' 

CHAP.  I. 

Evidence  of  the  Sufferings  of  the  First  Propagators  of  Christianity, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case. 

To  support  this  proposition,  two  points  are  necessary  to  be  made 
out:  first,  that  the  Founder  of  the  institution,  his  associates  and  im¬ 
mediate  followers,  acted  the  part  which  the  proposition  imputes  to 
them:  secondly,  that  they  did  so  in  attestation  of  the  miraculous 
history  recorded  in  our  Scriptures,  and  solely  in  consequence  ot 

their  belief  of  the  truth  of  this  history.  , 

Before  we  produce  any  particular  testimony  to  the  activity  ana 
sufferings  which  compose  the  subject  of  our  first  asserUon,  it  wi  1 
be  proper  to  consider  the  degree  of  probability  which  the  assertion 
derives  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  is,  by  inferences  from  those 
parts  of  the  case  which,  in  point  of  fact,  are  on  all  hands  acknow- 

First,  then,  the  Christian  religion  exists,  and  therefore  by  some 
means  or  other  was  established.  Now  it  either  owes  the  princi^e 
of  its  establishment,  i.  e.  its  first  publication,  to  the  activity  ot  the 
Person  who  was  the  founder  of  the  institution,  and  of  those  who 
were  ioined  with  him  in  the  undertaking,  or  we  are  driven  upon 
the  strange  supposition,  that,  although  they  might  lie  by,  others 
would  take  it  up;  although  they  were  quiet  and  silent,  other  per¬ 
sons  busied  themselves  in  the  success  and  of 

story.  This  is  perfectly  incredible.  To  me  it  appears  little  less 
than  certain,  that,  if  the  first  announcing  of  the  religion  by  file 
Founder  had  not  1  een  followed  up  by  the  zeal  and  industiy  (fi  his 
immediate  discipl  ts,  the  attempt  must  have  expired  in  i  ^  ir 
I'hen  as  to  the  kind  and  degree  of  exertion  which  was  employed 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  21 

and  the  mode  of  life  to  which  these  persons  submitted,  we  reasona¬ 
bly  suppose  it  to  be  like  that  which  we  observe  in  all  others  who 
voluntarily  become  missionaries  of  a  new  faith.  Frequent,  earnest 
and  laborious  preaching,  constantly  conversing  with  religious  per¬ 
sons  upon  religion,  a  sequestration  from  the  common  pleasures,  en¬ 
gagements,  and  varieties  of  life,  and  an  addiction  to  one  serious  ob¬ 
ject,  compose  the  habits  of  such  men.  I  do  not  say  that  this  mode 
of  life  is  without  enjoyment,  but  I  say  that  the  enjoyment  springs 
from  sincerity.  With  a  consciousness  at  the  bottom  of  hollowness 
and  falsehood,  the  fatigue  and  restraint  would  become  insupporta¬ 
ble.  I  am  apt  to  believe  that  very  few  hypocrites  engage  in  these 
undertakings  ;  or,  however,  persist  in  them  long.  Ordinarily  speak¬ 
ing,  nothing  can  overcome  the  indolence  of  mankind,  the  love 
which  is  natural  to  most  tempers  of  cheerful  society  and  cheerful 
scenes,  or  the  desire  which  is  common  to  all,  of  personal  ease  and 
freedom,  but  conviction. 

Secondly,  it  is  also  highly  probable,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
that  the'propagation  of  the  new  religion  was  attended  with  difficulty 
and  danger.  As  addressed  to  the  Jews,  it  was  a  system  adverse  not 
only  to  their  habitual  opinions,  but  to  those  opinions  upon  which 
their  hopes,  their  partialities,  their  pride,  their  consolation,  was 
founded.  This  people,  with  or  without  reason,  had  worked  them¬ 
selves  into  a  persuasion,  that  some  signal  and  greatly  advantageous 
change  w^as  to  be  effected  in  the  condition  of  their  country,  by  the 
agency  of  a  long-promised  messenger  from  heaven.^  The  rulers 
of  the  Jew;s,  their  leading  sect,  their  priesthood,  had  been  the  au¬ 
thors  of  this  persuasion  to  the  common  people ;  so  that  it  was  not 
merely  the  conjecture  of  theoretical  divines,  or  the  secret  expecta¬ 
tion  of  a  few  recluse  devotees,  but  it  was  become  the  popular  hope 
and  passion,  and  like  all  popular  opinions,  undoubting,  and  impatient 
of  contradiction.  They  clung  to  this  hope  under  every  misfortune 
of  their  country,  and  with  more  tenacity  as  their  dangers  or  calami¬ 
ties  increased.  To  find,  therefore,  that  expectations  so  gratifying 
w^e  to  be  worse  than  disappointed ;  that  they  were  to  end  in  the 
diffusion  of  a  mild  unambitious  religion,  which,  instead  of  victories 
and  triumphs,  instead  of  exalting  their  nation  and  institution  above 
the  rest  of  the  world,  was  to  advance  those  whom  they  despised  to 
an  equality  with  themselves,  in  those  very  points  of  comparison  in 
which  they  most  valued  their  own  distinction,  could  be  no  very 
pleasing  discovery  to  a  Jewish  mind;  nor  could  the  messengers  of 
such  intelligence  expect  to  be  well  received  or  easily  credited.  The 
doctrine  was  equally  harsh  and  novel.  The  extending  of  the  king¬ 
dom  of  God  to  those  who  did  not  conform  to  the  law  of  Moses,  was 
a  notion  that  had  never  before  entered  into  the  thoughts  of  a  Jew. 


‘  Percrebuerat  oriente  toto  vetus  et  constans  opinio,  esse  in  fatis,  ut  eo 
tempore  Judiea  profecti  rerum  potirentur.’— Sueton.  Vespasian,  cap.  4 — 8. 

‘  Pluribus  persuasio  inerat,  antiquis  sacerdotum  liteiis  contineri,  eo 
ipso  tempore  fore,  ut  valesceret  orieiis,  profectique  Judeea  rerum  potiren¬ 
tur.’— Tacit.  Hist.  lib.  V.  cap.  9—13.  ^ 


22  Paley's  View  of  the 

The  character  of  the  new  institution  was,  in  other  repects  also, 
ungrateful  to  Jewish  habits  and  principles.  Their  own  religion  was 
in  a  high  degree  technical.  Even  the  enlightened  Jew  placed  a 
great  deal  of  stress  upon  the  ceremonies  of  his  law,  saw  in  them  a 
great  deal  of  virtue  and  efficacy ;  the  gross  and  vulgar  had  scarcely 
any  thing  else ;  and  the  hypocritical  and  ostentatious  magnified  them 
above  measure,  as  being  the  instruments  of  their  own  reputation 
and  influence.  The  Christian  scheme,  without  formally  repealing 
the  Levitical  code,  lowered  its  estimation  extremely.  In  the  place 
of  strictness  and  zeal  in  performing  the  observances  which  that  code 
prescribed,  or  which  tradition  had  added  to  it,  the  new  sect  preached 
up  faith,  well-regulated  affections,  inward  purity,  and  moral  recti¬ 
tude  of  disposition,  as  the  true  ground,  on  the  part  of  the  worship¬ 
per,  of  merit  and  acceptance  with  God.  This,  however  rational  it 
may  appear,  or  recommending  to  us  at  present,  did  not  by  any  means 
facilitate  the  plan  then.  On  the  contrary,  to  disparage  those  quali¬ 
ties  which  the  highest  characters  in  the  country  valued  themselves 
most  upon,  was  a  sure  way  of  making  powerful  enemies.  As  if  the 
frustration  of  the  national  hope  w-as  not  enough,  the  long-esteemed 
merit  of  ritual  zeal  and  punctuality  was  to  be  decried,  and  that  by 
Jews  preaching  to  Jews. 

The  ruling  party  at  Jerusalem  had  just  before  crucified  the 
Founder  of  the  religion.  That  is  a  fact  which  will  not  be  disputed. 
They,  therefore,  who  stood  forth  to  preach  the  religion,  must  neces¬ 
sarily  reproach  these  rulers  with  an  execution,  which  they  could 
not  but  represent  as  an  unjust  and  cruel  murder.  This  would  not 
render  their  office  more  easy,  or  their  situation  more  safe. 

With  regard  to  the  interference  of  the  Roman  government  which 
was  then  established  in  Judea,  I  should  not  expect,  that,  despising 
as  it  did  the  religion  of  the  country,  it  would,  if  left  to  itself,  ani¬ 
madvert,  either  with  much  vigilance  or  much  severity,  upon  the 
schisms  and  controversies  which  arose  within  it.  Yet  there  was 
that  in  Christianity  which  might  easily  afford  a  handle  of  accusa; 
tion  with  a  jealous  government.  The  Christians  avowed  an  unqual¬ 
ified  obedience  to  a  new  master.  They  avowed  also  that  he  was 
thQ  person  who  had  been  foretold  to  the  Jews  under  the  suspected 
title  of  King.  The  spiritual  nature  of  this  kingdom,  the  consistency 
of  this  obedience  with  civil  subjections,  were  distinctions  too  refmed 
to  be  entertained  by  a  Roman  president,  who  view'ed  the  business 
at  a  great  distance,  or  through  the  medium  of  very  hostile  repre¬ 
sentations.  Our  histories  accordingly  inform  us,  that  this  was  the 
turn  which  the  enemies  of  Jesus  gave  to  his  character  and  preten¬ 
sions  in  their  remonstrances  with  Pontius  Pilate.  And  Justin  Mar¬ 
tyr,  about  a  hundred  years  afterward,  complains  that  the  same  inis- 
take  prevailed  in  his  time:  ‘Ye  having  heard  that  we  are  W’aibng 
for  a  kingdom,  suppose,  without  distinguishing,  that  we  ® 

human  kingdom,  w'hen  in  truth  we  speak  of  that  which  is  with  God. 


*  Ap.  Ima.  p.  16.  Ed.  Thirl. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  23 

And  it  was  undoubtedly  a  natural  source  of  calumny  and  miscon¬ 
struction. 

•  preachers  of  Christianity  had  therefore  to  contend  with  pre¬ 
judice  backed  by  power.  They  had  to  come  forward  to  a  disap¬ 
pointed  people,  to  a  priesthood  possessing  a  considerable  share  of 
municipal  authority,  and  actuated  by  strong  motives  of  opposition 
and  resentment ;  and  they  had  to  do  this  under  a  foreign  govern 
ment,  to  whose  favor  they  made  no  pretensions,  and  which  was 
constantly  surrounded  by  their  enemies.  The  well-known,  because 
the  experienced  fate  of  reformers,  whenever  the  reformation  sub¬ 
verts  some  reigning  opinion,  and  does  not  proceed  upon  a  change 
that  has  already  taken  place  in  the  sentiments  of  a  country,  will 
niuch  less  lead  us  to  suppose,  that  the  first  propagators 
ol  ChrisUamty  at  Jerusalem,  and  in  Judea,  under  the  difficulties 
and  the  enemies  they  had  to  contend  with,  and  entirely  destitute  as 
they  were  of  force,  authority,  or  protection,  could  execute  their 
mission  with  personal  ease  and  safety. 

Let  us  next  inquire,  what  might  reasonably  be  expected  by  the 
^eachers  of  Christianity,  when  they  turned  themselves  to  the  hea¬ 
then  public.  Now  the  first  tiling  that  strikes  us  is,  that  the  religion 
they  carried  with  them  was  exclusive*  It  denied  without  reserve 
the  truth  of  every  article  of  heathen  mythology,  the  existence  of 
ei^ry  object  of  their  worship.  It  accepted  no  compromise ;  it  admit¬ 
ted  no  comprehension.  It  must  prevail,  if  it  prevailed  at  all,  by  the 
overthrow  of  every  statue,  altar,  and  temple,  in  the  world.  It  will 
not  easily  be  credited,  that  a  design,  so  bold  as  this  was,  could  in 
nge  be  attempted  to  be  carried  into  execution  with  impunity. 
For  it  ought  to  be  considered,  that  this  was  not  setting  forth,  or 
magnifying  the  character  and  worsliip  of  some  new  competitor  for 
a  place  in  the  Pantheon,  whose  pretensions  might  be  discussed  or 
asserted  without  questioning  the  reality  of  any  others ;  it  was  pro¬ 
nouncing  all  other 'gods  to  be  false,  and  all  other  worship  vain. 
Frorn  the  facility  with  which  the  polytheism  of  ancient  nations 
actaitted  nevy  objects  of  worship  into  the  number  of  their  acknow¬ 
ledged  divinities,  or  the  patience  with  which  they  might  entertain 
proposals  of  this  kind,  we  can  argue  nothing  as  to  their  toleration 
of  a  system,  or  of  the  publishers  and  active  propagators  of  a  system 
which  swept  away  the  very  foundation  of  the  existing  establishment. 
The  one  was  nothing  more  than  what  it  would  be,  in  popish  coun- 
tnes,  to  add  a  saint  to  the  calendar ;  the  other  was  to  abolish  and 
tread  under  foot  the  calendar  itself 
Secondly,  it  ought  also  to  be  considered,  that  this  was  not  the  case 
of  philosophers  propounding  in  their  books,  or  in  their  schools, 
^ubts  concerning  the  truth  of  the  popular  creed,  or  even  avowing 
their  disbelief  of  it.  These  philosophers  did  not  go  about  from  place 
to  place  to  collect  proselytes  from  amongst  the  common  people ;  to 
form  in  the  heart  of  the  country  societies  professing  their  tenets ;  to 
provide  for  the  order,  instruction,  and  permanency  of  these  socie¬ 
ties;  nor  did  they  enjoin  their  followers  to  withdraw  themselves 


24  Foley's  View  of  the 

from  the  public  worship  of  the  temples,*  or  refuse  a  TOmphance 
with  rites  instituted  by  the  laws.  These  things  are  w;hat  the  Chri^ 
tians  did,  and  what  the  philosophers  did  not ;  and  in  these  consisted 
the  activity  and  danger  of  the  enterprise.  ,  .  , 

Thirdly,  it  ought  also  to  be  considered,  that  this  danger  proceeded 
not  merely  from  solemn  acts  and  public  resolutions  of  the  state,  but 
from  sudden  bursts  of  violence  at  particular  places,  from  the  license 
of  the  populace,  the  rashness  of  some  magistrates,  and  negligence  ot 
others :  from  the  influence  and  instigation  of  interested  adversaries, 
and  in  general,  from  the  variety  and  warmth  of  opinion  which  an 
errand  so  novel  and  extraordinary  could  not  fail  of  exciting.  1 
conceive  that  the  teachers  of  Christianity  might  both  fear  and  sufier 
much  from  these  causes,  without  any  general  persecution  being  de¬ 
nounced  against  them  by  imperial  authority.  Some  length  of  time, 
should  suppose,  might  pass,  before  the  vast  machine  of  the  Roman 
mpire  would  be  put  in  motion,  or  its  attention  be  obtained  to  reli- 
eious  controversy :  but,  during  that  time,  a  great  deal  of  ill  usage 
might  be  endured,  by  a  set  of  friendless,  unprotected  travellers, 
tellin^-  men,  wherever  they  came,  that  the  religion  of  then;  ances¬ 
tors  the  religion  in  which  they  had  been  brought  up,  the  religion  of 
the ’state,  and  of  the  magistrate,  the  rites  which  they  frequented, 
the  pomp  which  they  admired,  was  throughout  a  system  ot  folly  and 

^^Nor°do  I  think  that  the  teachers  of  Christianity  would  find  pro¬ 
tection  in  that  general  disbelief  of  the  popular  theology,  which  is 
supposed  to  have  prevailed  amongst  the  intelligent  part  ot  the 
heathen  public.  It  is  by  no  means  true  that  unbelievers  are  usually 
tolerant.  They  are  not  disposed  (and  why  should  they  ?)  to  eManger 
the  present  state  of  things,  by  suffering  a  religion  of  which  they  be¬ 
lieve  nothing,  to  be  disturbed  by  another  of  which  they  believe  as 
little.  They  are  ready  themselves  to  conform  to  any  thing;  and 
are,  oftentimes,  amongst  the  foremost  to  procure  conformity  from 
others,  by  any  method  which  they  think  likely  to  be  efficacmus. 
When  was  ever  a  change  of  religion  patronized  by  infidels  .  fdow 
little,  notwithstanding  the  reigning  scepticism,  and  the  raagnihed 
liberality  of  that  age,  the  true  principles  of  toleration  w’ere  under¬ 
stood  by  the  wisest  men  amongst  them,  may  be  gathered  from  two 
eminent  and  uncontested  examples.  The  younger  Pliny,  polished 
as  he  was  by  all  the  literature  of  that  soft  and  elegant  period,  could 
gravely  pronounce  this  monstrous  judg-ment;— ‘Those  who  persisted 
in  declaring  themselves  Christians,  I  ordered  to  be  led  away  to  pun¬ 
ishment  (i.  e.  to  execution),  for  I  did  not  whatever  it  ims  that 

they  confessed^  that  contumacy  and  inflexible  obstinacy  ought  to  be 

*  The  best  of  the  ancient  pWlosophers,  Plato,  Cicero,  and  Epictetus, 
allowed,  or  rather  enjoined,  men  to  worship  the  gods 

in  the  ekablished  form.  See  passages  to  this  purpose  collected  from  their 
works,  by  Dr.  Clarke,  Nat.  and  Rev.  Rel.  p.  180.  ed^  5.— Except  ^ocrates, 
they  all  thought  it  wiser  to  comply  with  the  laws  than  to  contend. 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 


2r> 

punished.  His  master,  Trajan,  a  mild  and  accomplislied  prince 
went,  nevertheless,  no  further  in  his  sentiments  of  moderation  and 
equity,  than  what  appears  in  the  following  rescript :  ‘  The  Christians 
are  not  to  be  sought  for :  but  if  any  are  brought  before  you,  and 
convicted,  they  are  to  be  punished.’  And  this  direction  he  gives 
after  it  had  been  reported  to  him  by  his  own  president,  that,  by  the’ 
niost  strict  examination  nothing  could  be  discovered  in  the  principles 
of  these  persons,  but  ‘  a  bad  and  excessive  .superstition,’  accW- 
panied,  it  seems,  with  an  oath  or  mutual  federation,  ‘  to  allow  them¬ 
selves  in  no  crime,  or  immoral  conduct  wdiatever.’  The  truth  is  th 
ancient  heathens  considered  religion  entirely  as  an  affair  of  state,  a 
tuition  of  the  magistrate,  as  any  other  part  of  the 
^hce.  The  religion  of  that  age  was  not  merely  allied  to  the  state: 
hv  incorporated  into  it  Many  of  its  offices  were  administered 
hlrnl  h  ^  Pcnhffs,  augurs,  and  flamens,  were 

Ik  f generals.  Without  discussing,  there- 

fore,  the  truth  of  theology,  they  resented  every  affront  put  upon  the 

emnem^^  worship,  as  a  direct  opposition  to  the  authority  of  gov 

Add  to  wdiich,  that  the  religious  systems  of  those  times,  however 
f  cyidence,  had  been  long  established.  The  ancient 
thi  flT-  *^®nntry  has  always  many  votaries,  and  sometimes  not 
luL  ’because  Its  origin  is  hidden  in  remoteness  and  obscurity. 
Men  have  a  natural  veneration  for  antiquity,  especially  in  matters 

to  ffio  says  of  the  Jewish,  was  more  applicable 

to  he  heathen  establishment;  ‘ Hi  ritus,  quoquo  mode  inducti,  an- 
p  itate  defenduntur.  It  was  also  a  splendid  and  sumptuous  wor- 
hip.  It  had  Its  priesthood,  its  endowments,  its  temples.  Statuary 
painting,  architecture,  and  music,  contributed  their  effect  to  its  ornL 
ment  and  magnifeence.  It  abounded  in  festival  shows  and  solem- 
^  common  people  are  greatly  addicted,  and  which 

v^ere  of  a  nature  to  engage  them  much  more  than  any  thing  of  that 

^cle  by  the  fascination  of  spectacle  and  pomp,  as  well  as  interest 
many  in  its  preservation  by  the  advantage  which  they  drew  from  it. 
was  moreover  interwoven,’  as  Mr.  Gibbon  rightly  represents  it, 

t-r/p  business  or  pleasure,  of  public  or  pri- 

ate  nte,  with  all  the  offices  and  amusements  of  society.’  On  thi* 

and  dfd^ people  were  taught  to  believe, 
Se  depeS^’  ^  Prosperity  of  their  country  in  a  gi-eat  mea- 

hAt?  account  of  the  matter  which  is  given 

in  various  modes  of  worship  which  prevailed 

true  considered  by  the  people  as  equally 

enuallvnl  as  equa%  false,  and  by  the  magistrate  as 

of  min  ?  weuld  ask  from  which  of  these  three  classes 

U  ^^^^^^^11  missionaries  to  look  for  protection  or  im- 

?3pnn  ^  5®^  P^^'Pl®’  ‘  ^hose  acknowledged 

conhdence  in  the  public  rcdigion’  they  subverted  from  its  founda- 

18  C 


20 


Paley's  View  of  the 


tion?  From  the  philosopher,  who,  ‘considering  all  reli^ons  m 
equally  false,’  would  of  course  rank  theirs  among  the  number,  with  i 
the  addition  of  regarding  them  as  busy  and  f ^ 

Or  from  the  magistrate,  who,  satisfied  with  the  utility  of  the  sub¬ 
sisting  religion,  would  not  be  likely  to  countenance  a  spin  o  prose- 
lytism  and  innovation a  system  which  declared  war  against  every 
other,  and  which,  if  it  prevailed,  must  end  in  a  total  rupture  ol 
public  opinion ;  an  upstart  religion,  in  a  word,  which  was  not  con 
tent  with  its  own  authority,  but  must  disgrace  all  the  settled  reli¬ 
gions  in  the  world  ?  It  was  not  to  be  imagined  that  he  would  endure 
with  patience,  that  the  religion  of  the  emperor  and  of  the  state 
should  be  calumniated  and  borne  down  by  a  company  of  supersti¬ 
tious  and  despicable  Jews.  •  i 

Lastly,  the  nature  of  the  case  affords  a  strong  proof,  that  the  original 
teachers  of  Christianity,  in  consequence  of  their  new  Profession,  en¬ 
tered  upon  a  new  and  singular  course  of  life.  We  may  be  allowed 
to  presume,  that  the  institution  which  they  preached  to  others,  they 
conformed  to  in  their  own  persons;  because  this  is  no  more  than 
what  every  teacher  of  a  new  religion  both  does,  and  must  do,  or¬ 
der  to  obtain  either  proselytes  or  hearers.  The  change  which  this 
would  produce  was  very  considerable.  It  is  a  change  which  we 
not  easily  estimate,  because,  ourselves  and  all  about  us  heing  habitu¬ 
ated  to  the  institution  from  our  infancy,  it  is  what  we  ^o^^oer  expe¬ 
rience  nor  observe.  After  men  became  Christians,  much  of  their 
time  was  spent  in  prayer  and  devotion,  in  religious  meetings,  m 
celebrating  the  eucharist,  in  conferences,  in  exhortations,  P*'oyon- 
ing,  in  an  affectionate  intercourse  with  other  societies.  Ferhap||| 
their  mode  of  life,  in  its  form  and  habit,  was  not  very  unuke  the* 
Unitas  Fratrum,  or  the  modern  Methodists.  Think  then  what  it  wm  f| 
to  become  such  at  Corinth,  at  Ephesus,  at  Antiocji,  or  even  at  Jeiu- 
salera.  How  new!  how  alien  from  all  their  former  habits,  and 
ideas,  and  from  those  of  every  body  about  them.  What  a  Fexohi-  ^ 
tion  there  must  have  been  of  opinions  and  prejudices  to  bring  the< 
matter  to  this ! 

We  know  what  the  precepts  of  the  religion  are :  how  Pyy®> 
benevolent,  how  disinterested  a  conduct  they  enjoin ;  and  toat  this 
purity  and  benevolence  are  extended  to  the  very  thoughts  and 
affections.  We  are  not,  perhaps,  at  liberty  to  take  for  granted  that 
the  lives  of  the  preachers  of  Christianity  were  as  perfect  as  thei 
lessons :  but  we  are  entitled  to  contend,  that  the  observable  part  ot 
their  behavior  must  have  agreed  in  a  great  measure  with  fhe  duties 
which  they  taught.  There  was,  therefore  ^hich  is  all  that  we  as¬ 
sert),  a  course  of  life  pursued  by  them,  different  from  that  which 
they  before  led.  And  this  is  of  great  importance.  Men  are  hroug^ht 
to  any  thing  almost  sooner  than  to  change  their  habit  of  life,  espe¬ 
cially  when  the  change  is  either  inconvenient,  or  made  against  the 
force  of  natural  inclination,  or  with  the  loss  of  accustomed  indul¬ 
gences.  ‘It  is  the  most  difficult  of  all  things  to  convert  men  from 
vicious  habits  to  virtuous  ones,  as  every  one  may  judge  from  wfiai 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  27 

he  feels  m  as  well  as  froni  what  he  sees  in  others.’*  If  iq 

almost  like  making  men  over  again. 

Left  then  to  myself,  and  without  any  more  information  fh-in  o 
knovvledge  of  the  existence  of  the  religion,  of  tlrffeS 
Which  It  IS  founded,  and  that  no  act  of  power,  for^ce  and  aSoWnf 
was  concerned  in  its  first  success,  I  should  conclude’  from  the  vei^ 

the  case,  that  the  Author  of  the  relidon 
durmg  his  life,  and  his  immediate  disciples  after  his  death  exerted 
hemselves  in  spreading  and  publishing  the  institution  throiSw 
he  country  in  which  it  began,  and  into  which  if  wTfirst  Stf- 
Aat,  in  the  prosecution  of  this  purpose,  they  underwent  the  labors 
and  tioubles  which  we  observe  the  propagators  of  new  sects  to 
attempt  must  necessarily  have  also  been  in  a 
high  degree  dangerous ;  that,  from  the  subject  of  the  mission  com 
pared  with  the  lixed  opinions  and  prejudices  of  those  to  Sm  Te 
mssionaries  were  to  address  themselves,  they  could  hardly  fail  of 
encountering  strong  and  frequent  opposition  ;  that,  by  the  Lnd  of 
goyernment,  as  well  as  from  the  sudden  fury  and  unbridled  hSn^ 
of  the  people,  they  would  oftentimes  experience  injurious  and  cruel 
reatment ;  that,  at  any  rate,  they  must  have  always  had  so  much 
to  fear  for  their  personal  safety,  as  to  have  passed^theh- lives  f  a 
state  of  constant  peril  and  anxiety;  and,  lastly,  that  their  mode  of 

correspondeJ  with  the  institutions 

toSselFdantr’^'*- required 


CHAP.  IL 

£»«««  0/  ..e  Sujryn,^  »/ 

D?SdeS  h  come  down  to  us.  And  this  inquiry  is  properly 
preceded  by  the  other,  forasmuch  as  the  reception  of  these' accounts 

credibility  of  what  they  contain 

hJfh  ^od  distant  view  of  Christianity,  which  some  of  the 

h  "'“i  “?'■  *'?<*  “<•  which  a  feTpaSogea 

m  their  remaining  works  incidentally  discover  to  us,  offers  itself  to 

h  s  the  this  evdde  ice  gls 

dmJf  the  source  from  which  h  is 

well  this  head,  a  quotation  from  Tacitus 

culsr  fit f  ®^holar,  must  be  inserted,  as  deserving  parti- 

was  hear  in  miAd  that  thif  pafsafe 

^  seventy  years  after  Christ’s  death,  and  thm  it  re- 

event  o^’^'^^^^tions  which  took  place  about  thirty  years  after  that 
^vent.  Speaking  of  the  fire  which  happened  at  RoL  in  the  time 


*  Hartley’s  Essays  on.  Man,  p.  190. 


28 


Paley’s  View  of  the 


M  large.se.  to  the  people  nor 

hisoffLhigstothe  gods,  did  away  the  infamous  imputation  under 

woirrn  nf  'Tihprius  Under  his  procurator  Pontius  Pilate.  P 

nicioussupe-^^^^^^^ 

°‘'  5“tef  by  teuS  rn^Aery';  for  somf  were  disguS"in''  Ihe 
ST^dtSfaS  worried’!  deadr  by  do^  i  aonte  were  em- 

betaF^?eciTf^l^!w^^^to“ 

'""f  p?-\nd  tS/th?y  were  criminals,  and  deserving  the  severest? 

”^Our  concern  with  this  passage  at  present  is  only  so  far  as  it  afford^' 

=iiEe 

'tiS-'tL  F^Sroftto  li^tudor^^f  pr™ ^ly,  thaUn 
h?same  countrl  in  which  he  wa.  put  to  death,  the  religion  after 

?:h!Pheek  bi;ke  out  again  and  spread;^ 

CS  Sr. to  >'(“lea«  mumndo)  were  found  at  ^me 
From  which  fact  the  two  following  inferences  may  be  fairly  drawn . 


Heath.  Test.  vol.  i.  p.  359. 


29 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 


been  ulle  ;  secoxidly,  that  when  the  Author  of  the  undertakino-  was 
put  lo  death  as  a  malefactor  for  his  attempt,  the  endeavors  of  his 
tollowers  to  establish  his  religion  in  the  same  country,  amonest  the 

same  people,  and  m  the  same  age,  could  not  but  be  attended  with 
danger. 

Suetonius,  a  writer  contemporary  with  Tacitus,  describing  the 
tonsactions  of  the  same  reign,  uses  these  words :  ‘  Affecti  suppliciis 
^hristiani,  genus  hominum  superstitionis  novas  et  maleficm.’*  ‘  The 
^hristians,  a  set  of  men  of  a  new  and  mischievous  (or  magical")  su¬ 
perstition,  w^ere  punished.’  ^ 

Since  it  is  not  mentioned  here  that  the  burning  of  the  city  was 
he  pretence  of  the  punishment  of  the  Christians,  or  that  they  were 
the  Chri.stians  of  Rome  who  alone  suffered,  it  is  probable  that  Sue¬ 
tonius  refers  to  some  more  general  persecution  than  the  short  and 
occasional  one  which  Tacitus  describes. 

Juvenal,  a  w'riter  of  the  same  age  with  the  two  former,  and  in- 
tending.  It  should  seem,  to  commemorate  the  cruelties  exercised 
under  Nero  s  government,  has  the  following  lines  :t 


‘  Pone  Tigelliniim,  teda  lucebis  in  ilia 
Qua  stantes  ardent,  qui  fixo  gutture  fumant, 
Et  latum  media  sulcum  deducitj  arena.’ 


Describe  Tigellinus  (a  creature  of  Nero),  and  you  shall  suffer  the 
same  punishment  with  those  who  stand  burning  in  their  own  flame 
their  head  being  held  up  by  a  stake  fixed  to  their  chin, 
till  they  make  a  long  stream  of  blood  and  melted  sulphur  on  the 
ground.’  ^ 

If  this  passage  were  considered  by  itself,  the  subject  of  allusion 
mighi  be  doubttul ;  but,  when  connected  with  the  testimony  of 
feuetonius,  as  to  the  actual  punishment  of  the  Christians  by  Nero, 
and  with  the  account  given  by  Tacitus  of  the  species  of  punish- 
ment  which  they  were  made  to  undergo,  I  think  it  sufficiently 
probable,  that  these  were  the  executions  to  which  the  poet  refers. 

as  has  been  already  observed,  took  place  within 
mrty-one  years  after  Christ’s  death,  that  is,  according  to  the  course 
of  nature,  in  the  lifetime,  probably,  of  some  of  the  apostles,  and 
certainly  in  the  lifetime  of  those  who  were  converted  by  the  apos¬ 
tles,  or  who  were  converted  in  their  time.  If  then  the  Founder  of 
the  religion  wms  put  to  death  in  the  execution  of  his  design  ;  if  the 
first  race  of  converts  to  the  religion,  many  of  them,  suffered  the 
greatest  extremities  for  their  profession  ;  it  is  hardly  credible,  that 
those  who  came  between  the  two,  who  were  companions  of  the  Au¬ 
thor  of  the  insthution  during  his  life,  and  the  teachers  and  propaga¬ 
tor  of  the  institution  after  his  death,  could  go  about  tlieir  under¬ 
taking  with  ease  and  safety. 

The  testmony  of  the  younger  Pliny  belongs  to  a  later  period  ; 
lor  although  he  was  contemporary  with  Tacitus  and  Suetonius,  yet 
his  account  does  not,  like  theirs,  go  back  to  the  transactions  of 


Suet.  Nero.  cap.  16.  j  Sat.  i.  vcr.  155.  j  Foriias  ‘dedncis.’ 

C2 


30  Paley's  Vieio  of  the 

■SS:sr  ss  5s-=rS 

ogros,  superstitioms  WM  “  h  J  tie  contagion  of 

=SS3SiHi^i£SS 

SrrSiH!rI?S/SSc»^^ 

SIsH-SS^SSS 

“SSEiBHS-SlilS 

|#Si“E‘;H5SSBi 

W’lth.  f63.r  9,110.  u911§0r  .  ^  y  v.^r*-  rM*  onllmriyinp’  tllP  DPrSBCU- 

fro^Ch^Sr  ™rc:  Srther  connfm^-  ^by  a  re- 

ESSSSISSil 

^Sa“&yea. 

^f,'!^lXr“No.tog.  howevfr,  cot.kl  show  the  notoriety  of  to 

'  %  Lard.  Heath.  Test,  vol  ii.  HO. 

t  In  matutina  nuper  s^ctatos  -  . 

Mucins,  imposuit  qui  siia  tocis, 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  31 

fact  with  more  certainty  than  this  does.  Martial’s  testimony,  as  well 
indeed  as  Pliny’s,  goes  also  to  another  point,  viz.  that  the  deaths  of 
these  men  were  martyrdoms  in  the  strictest  sense,  that  is  to  say, 
were  so  voluntary,  that  it  was  in  their  power,  at  the  time  of  pro¬ 
nouncing  the  sentence,  to  have  averted  the  execution,  by  consenting 
to  join  in  heathen  sacrifices. 

The  constancy,  and  by  consequence  the  sufferings,  of  the  Chris¬ 
tians  of  this  period,  is  also  referred  to  by  Epictetus,  who  imputes 
their  intrepidity  to  madness,  or  to  a  kind  of  .fashion  or  habit;  and 
about  fifty  years  afterward,  by  Marcus  Aurelius,  who  ascribes  it  to 
obstinacy.  ‘  Is  it  possible,  (Epictetus  asks,)  that  a  man  may  arrive 
at  mis  temper,  and  become  indifferent  to  those  things,  from  madness 
or  from  habit,  as  the  Galileans  ?  ’* *  ‘  Let  this  preparation  of  the  mind 
(to  die)  arise  from  its  own  judgment,  and  not  from  obstinacy  like  the 
ChrisUans.'f 


CHAP.  III. 

tnMrect  Evidence  <f  the  Sufferings  of  the  First  Propagators  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  from  the  Scriptures,  and  other  ancient  Christian  W^ritings. 

Of  the  priniitive  condition  of  Christianity,  a  distant  only  and  gene¬ 
ral  view  can  be  acquired  from  heathen  writers.  It  is  in  our  own 
books  that  the  detail  and  interior  of  the  transaction  must  be  sought 
ton  And  this  is  nothing  different  from  what  might  be  expected. 
Who  would  write  a  history  of  Christianity,  but  a  Christian  ?  Who 
■was  likely  to  record  the  travels,  sufferings,  labors,  or  successes,  of 
me  apostles,  but  one  of  their  own  number,  or  of  their  followers  ? 
Now  these  books  come  up  in  their  acccunts  to  the  full  extent  of  the 
proposition  which  we  maintain.  We  have  four  histories  of  Jesus 
Christ.  We  have  a  history  taldng  up  the  narrative  from  his  death, 
and  carrymg  on  an  account  of  the  propagation  of  the  religion,  and 
oi  some  of  the  most  eminent  persons  engaged  in  it,  for  a  space  of 
nearly  thirty  years.  We  have,  what  some  may  think  still  more  ori¬ 
ginal  a  collection  of  letters,  written  by  certain  principal  agents  in 
the  business,  upon  the  business,  and  in  the  midst  of  their  concern 
and  connexion  with  it.  And  we  have  these  writings  severally 
attesting  the  point  which  we  contend  for,  viz.  the  sufferings  of  the 
witnesses  of  the  history,  and  attesting  it  in  every  variety  of  form  in 
which  it  can  be  conceived  to  appear :  directly  and  indirectly,  ex¬ 
pressly  and  incidentally,  by  assertion,  recital,  and  allusion,  by  narra- 


Si  patiens  fortisque  tibi  durusque  videtur, 
AbderitaniE  pectora  plebis  babes; 

Nam  '•urn  dicatur,  tunica  prcesente  raolesta, 

Urejl  manum  ;  plus  est  dicere,  Non  facio. 

*  Epict.  1.  iv.  e.  7.  t  Marc.  Aur.  Med.  I.  xi.  c.  3. 


1)  -Forsaxi  i  thure  maaum.* 


22  Paley's  View  of  the 

lives  of  facts,  and  by  arguments  and  discourses  built  upon  these 
facts  either  referring  to  them,  or  necessarily  presupposing  them. 

I  remark  this  variety,  because,  in  examining  ancient  records,  or 
indeed  any  species  of  testimony,  it  is,  in  my  opinion,  of  the  greatest 
importance  to  attend  to  the  information  or  grounds  ot  argument 
which  are  casually  and  undesignedly  disclosed ;  forasmuch  as  this 
species  of  proof  is,  of  all  others,  the  least  liable  to  be  corrupted  by 

fraud  or  misrepresentation.  _  _  ,  .  ,  •  > 

I  may  be  allowed,  therefore,  in  the  inquiry  which  is  now  before 
us,  to  suggest  some  conclusions  of  this  sort,  as  preparatory  o  more 

direct^testimony^eiate,  jgg,js  Christ,  the  founder  of  the  religion, 
was,  in  consequence  of  his  undertaking,  put  to  death,  as  a  malefac¬ 
tor,  at  Jerusalem.  This  point  at  least  will  be  granted,  because  it  is 
no  more  than  what  Tacitus  has  recorded.  They  then  proceed  to 
tell  us,  that  the  religion  was,  notwithstanding,  set  forth  at  this  same 
city  of  Jerusalem,  propagated  thence  throughout  Jud^,  and  after¬ 
ward  preached  in  other  parts  of  the  Roman  empire.  These  points 
also  are  fully  confirmed  by  Tacitus,  who  informs  us,  that  tlie  le  i- 
gion,  after  a  short  check,  broke  out  again  in  the  country  where  it 
took  its  rise ;  that  it  not  only  spread  throughout  Judea,  but  had 
reached  Rome,  and  that  it  had  there  great  multitudes  of  converts : 
and  all  this  within  thirty  years  after  its  com^mencement.  JNow  these 
facts  afford  a  strong  inference  in  behalf  of  the  proposition  which 
we  maintain.  What  could  the  disciples  of  Christ  expect  for  them 
selves  when  they  saw  their  Master  put  to  death?  Could  they  hope 
to  escape  the  dangers  in  which  he  had  perished  ?  If  they  have  pCT- 
secuted  me,  they  will  also  persecute  you,  was  the  warning  of  com¬ 
mon  sense.  With  this  example  before  their  eyes,  they  could  not  be 
without  a  full  sense  of  the  peril  of  their  future  enterprise.  ^  - 

2.  Secondly,  all  the  histories  agree  in  representing  Christ  as  foie- 

telling  the  persecution  of  his  followers : —  i  .  n  i -n  ^  , 

‘  Then  shall  they  deliver  you  up  to  be  afflicted,  and  shall  lull  you, 
and  ye  shall  be  hated  of  all  nations  for  my  name’s  sake.  • 

‘  When  affliction  or  persecution  ariseth  for  the  word  s  sake,  imme¬ 
diately  they  are  offonded.’t 

‘They  shall  lay  hands  on  you,  and  persecute  you,  delivering  ym 
up  to  the  synagogues,  and  into  prisons,  being  brought  before  k*^.^ 
and  rulers  for  my  name’s  sake : — and  ye  shall  be  betrayed  bom  by 
parents  and  brethren,  and  kinsfolks  and  friends;  and  some  ot  you 

shall  they  cause  to  be  put  to  death.’t  -it  i 

‘The  time  cometh,  that  he  that  killeth  you  will  think  that  he 
doeth  God  service.  And  these  things  will  they  do  unto  you,  because 
they  have  not  known  the  Father,  nor  me.  But  these  things  have  1 
told  you,  that  when  the  time  shall  come,  ye  may  remember  that  i 
told  you  of  them.’§ 


*  Matt.  xxiv.  9.  t  Mark  ly.  17. 

t  Luke  xxi.  12 — 16.  See  also  chap.  xi.  49* 

(  John  xvi.  4.  See  also  chap.  xv.  20.  xvi.  33. 


See  also  chap.  x.  3Q. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  33 

I  am  not  entitled  to  argue  Irom  these  passages,  that  Christ  actu¬ 
ally  did  foretell  these  events,  and  that  they  did  accordingly  come  to 
pass;  because  that  would  be  at  once  to  assume  the  truth  of  the  reli¬ 
gion  :  but  I  am  entitled  to  contend,  that  one  side  or  other  of  the  fol¬ 
lowing  disjunction  is  true ;  either  that  the  evangelists  have  deliv¬ 
ered  what  Christ  really  spoke,  and  that  the  event  corresponded 
with  the  prediction ;  or  that  they  put  the  prediction  into  Christ's 
mouth,  because,  at  the  time  of  writing  the  history,  the  event  had 
turned  out  so  to  be: -for,  the  only  two  remaining  suppositions  appear 
in  the  highest  degree  incredible ;  which  are,  either  that  Christ  tilled 
the  minds  of  his  followers  with  fears  and  apprehensions,  without 
any  reason  or  authority  for  what  he  said,  and  contrary  to  the  truth 
of  the  case ;  or  that,  although  Christ  had  never  foretold  any  such 
thing,  and  the  event  w'ould  have  contradicted  him  if  he  had,  yet 
historians,  who  lived  in  the  age  when  the  event  was  knowr.  falsely, 
as  w'ell  as  officiously,  ascribed  these  words  to  him. 

3.  Thirdly,  these  books  abound  with  exhortations  to  patience,  and 
with  topics  of  comfort  under  distress. 

‘  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ?  Shall  tribulation, 
or  distress,  or  persecution,  or  famine,  or  nakedness,  or  peril,  or  sword  ? 
Nay,  in  all  these  things  we  are  more  than  conquerors  through  Him 
that  loved  us.’* 

‘We  are  troubled  on  every  side,  yet  not  distressed;  we  are  per¬ 
plexed,  but  not  in  despair;  persecuted,  but  not  forsaken ;  cast  down, 
but  not  destroyed ;  always  bearing  about  in  the  body  the  dying  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  that  the  life  also  of- Jesus  might  be  made  manifest 
in  our  body ; — knowing  that  he  wLich  raised  up  the  Lord  Jesus  shall 
raise  us  up  also  by  Jesus,  and  shall  present  us  with  you. — For  which 
cause  we  faint  not ;  but,  though  our  outward  man  perish,  yet  the 
inward  man  is  renew’ed  day  by  day.  For  our  light  affliction,  which 
is  but  for'  a  moment,  worketh  for  us  a  far  more  exceeding  and  eter¬ 
nal  weight  of  glory.’t 

‘Take,  my  brethren,  the  prophets,  who  have  spoken  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  for  an  example  of  suffering  affliction,  and  patience. 
Behold,  we  count  them  happy  which  endure.  Ye  have  heard  of 
the  patience  of  Job,  and  have  seen  the  end  of  the  Lord ,  that  the 
Lord  is  very  pitiful,  and  of  tender  mercy.’t 

‘  Call  to  remembrance  the  former  days  in  which,  after  ye  were 
illuminated,  ye  endured  a  great  fight  of  afflictions,  partly  whilst  ye 
were  made  a  gazing-stock  both  by  reproaches  and  afflictions,  and 
partly  \vhilst  ye  became  companions  of  them  that  were  so  used  ;  for 
ye  had  compassion  of  me  in  my  bonds,  and  took  joyfully  the  spoiling 
of  your  goods,  knowing  in  yourselves  that  ye  have  in  heaven  a 
better  and  an  enduring  substance.  Cast  not  away,  therefore,  your 
confidence,  which  hath  great  recompense  of  rew'ard ;  for  ye  have 
need  of  patience,  that,  after  ye  have  done  the  will  of  God,  ye  might 
receive  the  promise.’5 


*  Rom.  viii.  35 — 37. 
t  James  v.  10,  11. 


t2Cor.  iv.  8— 10.  14. 16,17. 
§  Heb.  X.  32—36. 


34  Paley's  View  of  the 

‘  So  that  we  ourselves  glory  in  you  in  the  churches  ol  God,  for 
your  patience  and  faith  in  all  your  persecutions. and  tribulations  that 
ye  endure.  Which  is  a  manifest  token  of  the  righteous  judgment 
of  God,  that  ye  may  be  counted  worthy  of  the  kingdom  for  which 
ye  also  suffer.’* 

‘  We  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God  ;  and  not  only  so,  but  we 
glory  in  tribulations  also ;  knowing  that  tribulation  worketh  patience, 
and  patience  experience,  and  experience  hope.’t  ,  •  ,  • 

‘  Beloved,  think  it  not  strange  concerning  the  fiery  trial  which  is 
to  try  you,  as  though  some  strange  thing  happened  unto  you ;  but 

rejoice,  inasmuch  as  ye  are  partakers  of  Christ’s  sufferings. - - 

Wherefore  let  them  that  suffer  according  to  the  will  of  God,  co>nmit 
the  keeping  of  their  souls  to  him  in  well-doing,  as  unto  a  faithful 

C'r0titoi* 

What  could  all  these  texts  mean,  if  there  was  nothing  in  the  cir  ■ 
umstances  of  the  times  which  required  patience,  which  called 
the  exercise  of  constancy  and  resolution?  Or  will  it  be  pre 
tended,  that  these  exhortations  (which,  let  it  be  observed,  come  not 
from  one  author,  but  from  many)  were  put  in,  merely  to  induce  a 
belief  in  after-ages,  that  the  Christians  were  exposed  to  dangers 
which  they  were  not  exposed  to,  or  underwent  sufferings  which 
they  did  not  undergo?  If  these  books  belong  to  the  age  to  winch 
they  lay  claim,  and  in  which  age,  whether  genuine  or  spurious,  they 
certainly  did  appear,  this  supposition  cannot  be  maintained  for  a 
moment  t  because  I  think  it  impossible  to  believe,  that  passages 
which  must  be  deemed  not  only  unintelligible,  but  false,  by  the  per¬ 
sons  into  whose  hands  the  hooks  upon  their  publication  weie  t(? 
come,  should  nevertheless  be  inserted,  for  the  purpose  of  producing 
an  effect  upon  remote  generations.  In  forgeries  which  do  not  ap 
pear  till  many  ages  after  that  to  which  they  pretend  to  belong,  it  is 
possible  that  some  contrivance  of  that  sort  may  take  place ;  but  in 
no  others  can  it  be  attempted. 


CHAP.  IV. 

Direct  Evidence  of  the  Sufferings  of  the  First  Propagators  of  Chris¬ 
tianity^  from  the  Scriptures  a7id  other  ancient  Christian  writings. 

The  account  of  the  treatment  of  the  religion,  and  of  the  exer¬ 
tions  of  its  first  preachers,  as  stated  in  our  Scriptures  (not  in  a  pro- 
■^ssed  history  of  persecutions,  or  in  the  connected  manner  in  which 
am  about  to  recite  it,  but  dispersedly  and  occasionally  in  the  course 
of  a  mixed  general  history,  w^hich  circumstance  alone  negatives  the 
supposition  of  any  fraudulent  design),  is  the  following :  ‘  hat  the 
Founder  of  Christianity,  from  the  commencement  of  his  ministry  to 
the  time  of  his  violent  death,  employed  himself  wholly  in  publish 


*  2  Thess.  i.  4,  5. 


t  Roni.  V.  3, 4. 


X  1  Pet.  iv.  12,  13.  19, 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  35 

inf^  the  institution  in  Judea  and  Galilee;  that  in  order  to  assist  him 
m  this  purpose,  he  made  choice  out  of  the  number  of  his  followers, 
m  twelve  persons  who  might  accompany  him  as  he  travelled  from 
place  to  place ;  that  except  a  short  absence  upon  a  journey  in  which 
he  sent  them,  tw’o  by  two,  to  announce  his  mission,  and  one,  of  a 
lew  days,  when  they  went  before  him  to  Jerusalem,  these  persons 
were  statedly  and  constantly  attending  upon  him;  that  they  were 
with  him  ^  Jerusalem  when  he  was  apprehended  and  put  to  death  ; 
and  that  they  were  commissioned  by  him,  when  his  own  ministry 
was  concluded,  to  publish  his  gospel,  and  collect  disciples  to  it  from 
all  cour^ries  of  the  world.’  The  account  then  proceeds  to  state, 

‘  that  a  few  days  after  his  departure,  these  persons,  with  some  of  his 
relations,  and  some  who  had  regularly  frequented  their  society,  as¬ 
sembled  at  Jerusalem ;  that  considering  the  office  of  preaching  the 
religion  as  now  devolved  upon  them,  and  one  of  their  number 
having  deserted  the  cause,  and,  repenting  of  his  perfidy,  having  de- 
stroyed  himself,  they  proceeded  to  elect  another  into  his  place,  and 
that  they  were  careful  to  make  their  election  out  of  the  number  of 
those  who  had  accompanied  their  Master  from  the  first  to  the  last, 
m  order  as  they  alleged  that  he  might  be  a  witness,  together  with 
themselves,  of  the  principal  facts  which  they  w^ere  about  to  pro¬ 
duce  and  relate  concerning  him;’^'  that  they  began  their  work  at 
Jerusalem  by  publicly  asserting  that  this  Jesus,  whom  the  rulers 
<md  inhabitants  of  that  place  had  so  lately  crucified,  was,  in  truth, 
the  person  in  whom  all  their  prophecies  and  long  expectations  ter¬ 
minated  ;  that  he  had  been  sent  amongst  them  by  God,  and  that  he 
was  appointed  by  God  the  future  judge  of  the  human  species ;  that 
all  who  were  solicitous  to  secure  to  themselves  happiness  after 
death,  ought  to  receive  him  as  such,  and  to  make  profession  of  their 
beliel,  by  being  baptized  in  his  name.’t  The  history  goes  on  to  re¬ 
late,  ‘that  considerable  numbers  accepted  this  proposal,  and  that 
they  who  did  so,  formed  amongst  themselves  a  strict  union  and 
society,;  that  the  attention  of  the  Jewish  government  being  soon 
drawn  upon  them,  two  of  the  principal  persons  of  the  twelve,  and 
who  also  had  lived  most  intimately  and  constantly  with  the  Founder 
of  the  religion,  w^ere  seized  as  they  were  discoursing  to  the  people 
m  the  temple ;  that  after  being  kept  all  night  in  prison,  thev  were 
brought  the  next  day  before  an  assembly  composed  of  the  chief  per¬ 
sons  of  the  Jewish  magistracy  and  priesthood ;  that  this  assembly, 
after  some  consultation,  found  nothing  at  that  time  better  to  be  done 
toward^  suppressing  the  growth  of  the  sect,  than  to  threaten  their 
prisoners  with  punishment  if  they  persisted ;  that  these  men,  after 
expressing  in  decent  but  firm  language,  the  obligation  under  which 
they  considered  themselves  to  be,  to  declare  what  they  knew,  “to 
speak  the  things  which  they  had  seen  and  heard,”  returned  from 
^opticil,  and  reported  what  had  passed  to  their  companions ; 
hat  this  report,  w’hilst  it  apprized  them  of  the  danger  of  their  situa- 
lon  and  undertaking,  had  no  other  effect  upon  their  conduct  than  to 


*  Acts  i.  21,  22. 


t  Acts  xi. 


1  Acts  iv.  32. 


36 


Paley^s  View  of  the 


produce  in  them  a  general  resolution  to  persevere,  and  an  earnest 
prayer  to  God  to  furnish  them  vidth  assistance,  and  to  inspire  them 
with  fortitude  proportioned  to  the  increasing  exigency  of  the  ser¬ 
vice.’*  A  very  short  time  after  this,  yve  read,  ‘  that  all  the  twelve 
apostles  were  seized  and  cast  in  prison  ;t  that  being  brimght  a 
second  time  before  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim,  they  w’ere  upbraided 
with  their  disobedience  to  the  injunction  which  had  been  laid  upon 
them,  and  beaten  for  their  contumacy ;  that,  being  charged  once 
more  to  desist,  they  were  suffered  to  depart;  that  how'ever  they 
neither  quitted  Jerusalem,  nor  ceased  from  preaching,  both  daily  m 
the  temple,  and  from  house  to  house  and  that  the  twelve  con¬ 
sidered  themselves  as  so  entirely  and  exclusively  devoted  to  this 
office,  that  they  now  transferred  what  may  be  called  the  temporal 

affairs  of  the  society  to  other  hands.’§ 

Hitherto  the  preachers  of  the  new  religion  seem  to  have  had  the 
common  people  on  their  side ;  which  is  assigned  as  the  reason  why 
the  Jewish  rulers  did  not,  at  this  time,  think  it  prudent  to  proceed 
to  Ecreater  extremities.  It  was  not  long  however,  before  the  enemies 
of  the  institution  found  means  to  represent  it  to  the  people  as  tend¬ 
ing  to  subvert  their  law,  degrade  their  lawgiver,  and  dishonor  their 
temple.ll  And  these  insinuations  were  dispersed  with  so  much  suc¬ 
cess,  as  to  induce  the  people  to  join  with  their  superiors  in  the 
stoning  of  a  very  active  member  of  the  new  community. 

The  death  of  this  man  was  the  signal  of  a  general  persecihion, 
the  activity  of  which  may  be  judged  ol  from  one  anecdote  ol  the 
time:  ‘As  for  Saul,  he  made  havoc  of  the  church,  entering  into 
every  house,  and  haling  men  and  women,  comnutted  them  to  prison. 
This  persecution  raged  at  Jerusalem  with  so  much  fury  as  to  drive 
most  of  the  new  converts  out  of  the  place,  except  the  twelve  apos- 


t  Acts  V.  18.  t  Acts  V.  42. 


j  Acts  V.  18. 


ii  Acts  vi.  12, 


IF  Acts  viii.  3. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  37 

ties ’  The  converts,  thus  ‘scattered  abroad,’  preached  the  religion 
wherever  they  came ;  and  their  preaching  was,  in  effect,  the  preach¬ 
ing  ol  the  twelve ;  for  it  was  so  far  carried  on  in  concert  and  corre¬ 
spondence  with  them,  that  when  they  heard  of  the  success  of  their 
emissaries  in  a  particular  country,  they  sent  two  of  their  number  to 
the  place,  to  complete  and  confirm  the  mission. 

An  event  now  took  place,  of  great  importance  in  the  future  his- 
tory  of  the  religiom  The  persecutiont  which  had  begun  at  Jerusa¬ 
lem,  followed  the  Christians  to  other  cities,  in  which  the  authority 
11  Sanhedrim  over  those  of  their  own  nation  was 

allowed  to  be  exercised.  A  young  man,  wdio  had  signalized  himself 
by  his  hostility  to  the  profession,  and  had  procured  a  commission 
irom  the  wuncil  at  Jerusalem  to  seize  any  converted  Jews  whom 
he  might  find  at  Damascus,  suddenly  became  a  proselyte  to  the  reh- 
gion  whKth  he  was  going  about  to  extirpate.  The  new  convert  not 
onl3r  shared,  on  this  extraordinary  change,  the  fate  of  his  com 
j^nions,  but  brought  upon  himself  a  double  measure  of  enmity  from 
the  party  which  he  had  left.  The  Jew^s  at  Damascus,  on  his  return 
to  that  mty,  watched  the  gales  night  and  day  with  so  much  dili¬ 
gence,  that  he  escaped  from  their  hands  only  by  being  let  dowm  in 
a  basket  by  the  W'all.  Nor  did  he  find  himself  in  greater  safety  at 
Jerusalem,  whither  he  immediately  repaired.  Attempts  were  there 
also  soon  set  on  foot  to  destroy  him ;  from  the  danger  of  which  he 
was  preserved  by  being  sent  away  to  Cilicia,  his  native  country. 

for  some  reason  not  mentioned,  perhaps  not  known,  but  probably 
connected  with  the  civil  history  of  the  Jews,  or  with  some  danger! 
which  engrossed  the  public  attention,  an  intermission  about  this 
hme  took  place  in  the  sufferings  of  the  Christians.  This  happened, 
at  the  most,  only  seven  or  eight,  perhaps  only  three  or  four,  years 
1  death.  Within  which  period,  and  notwithstandino- 
that  the  late  persecution  occupied  part  of  it,  churches,  or  societies” 
of  believers,  had  been  formed  in  all  Judea,  Galilee,  and  Samaria; 
tor  we  read  that  the  churches  in  these  countries  ‘had  now  rest,  and 
were  edified  and  yyalking  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  com- 
V  Holy  Ghost,  were  multi plied.’$  The  original  preachers 
ot  the  religion  did  not  remit  their  labors  or  activity  during  this  sea¬ 
son  of  quietness,  for  w^e  find  one,  and  he  a  very  principal  person 
among  them,  passing  throughout  all  quarters.  We  find  also  those 


Acts  ynr  1,  ‘And  they  were  all  scattered  abroad  but  the  term  ‘  all’ 
ri  ’  ^  *0  be  taken  strictly  as  denoting  more  than  the  ffeneralitv  • 

m  Ike  manner  as  in  Acts  ix.  ‘And  all  that  dwelt  in  Lydia  and  Saron 
saw  him,  and  turned  to  the  Lord.’ 

t  Acts  ix. 

thi's  followed  also  by  Dr.  Benson)  ascribes 

I  persecution  of  the  Christians  to  the  attempt  of  Cali- 

statue  in  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  and  to  the  con- 

S2Jna  ^  *?"tds  of  the  Jewish  people;  which 

consternation  for  a  season  suspended  every  other  contest. 

§  Acts  ix.  .31. 

Tk 


3S  Palsy’s  View  of  iho 

who  had  been  before  expelled  from  Jerusalem  by  the  persecution 
which  raged  there,  travelling  as  far  as  Phmnice,  Cyprus,  and  An¬ 
tioch;*  and  lastly,  we  find  Jerusalem  again  m  the  centre  ot  the 
mission,  the  place  whither  the  preachers  returned  from  their  several 
excursions,  where  they  reported  the  conduct  and  effects  ot  tliei 
ministry,  where  questions  of  public  concern  were  canvassed  an 
settled,  whence  directions  were  sought,  and  teachers  sent  lorth. 

The  time  of  this  tranquillity  did  not,  however,  continue  long. 
Herod  Agrippa,  who  had  lately  acceded  to  the  government  of 
Judea,  ‘  stretched  forth  his  hand  to  vex  certain  of  the  church,  t  H 
began  his  cruelty  by  beheading  one  of  the  twelve  original  apostles, 
a  kinsman  and  constant  companion  of  the  Founder  of  the  religion. 
Perceiving  that  this  execution  gratified  the  Jews,  he  proceeded  to 
seize,  in  order  to  put  to  death,  another  of  the  number,— and  him, 
ike  the  former,  associated  with  Christ  during  his  life,  and  eminently 
active  in  the  service  since  his  death.  This  man  was,  however,  deliv¬ 
ered  from  prison,  as  the  account  states,!  miraculously,  and  made  his 

escape  from  Jerusalem.  i  i  • 

These  things  are  related,  not  in  the  general  terms  under  which, 
in  giving  the  outlines  of  the  history,  we  have  here  me^ntioned  them, 
but  with  the  utmost  particularity  of  names,  persons,  places,  and  cir¬ 
cumstances  ;  and,  what  is  deserving  of  notice,  without  the  smallest 
discoverable  propensity  in  the  historian  to  magnify  the  fortitude  or 
exaggerate  the  sufferings  of  his  party.  When  they  fled  for  their 
lives,  he  tells  us.  When  the  churches  had  rest,  he  reniarks  it 
When  the  people  took  their  part,  he  does  not  leave  it  vcithout  no¬ 
tice.  When  the  apostles  were  carried  a  second  time  before  the 
Sanhedrim,  he  is  careful  to  observe  that  they  were  brought  without 
violence.  When  milder  counsels  were  suggested,  he  gives  the 
author  of  the  advice,  and  the  speech  which  contained  it.  When, 
in  consequence  of  this  advice,  the  rulers  contented  themselves 
with  threatening  the  apostles,  and  commanding  them  to  be  beaten 
with  stripes,  without  urging  at  that  time  the  persecution  farther,  the 
historian  candidly  and  distinctly  records  their  forbearance.  When, 
therefore,  in  other  instances,  he  states  heavier  persecutions,  or  ac¬ 
tual  martyrdoms,  it  is  reasonable  to  believe  that  he  states  them  be¬ 
cause  they  were  true,  and  not  from  any  wish  to  aggrayate,  in  his 
account,  the  sufferings  which  Christians  sustained,  or  to  extol,  more 
than  it  deseryed,  their  patience  under  them.  ^  ^ 

Our  history  now  pursues  a  narrower  path.  Leaving  the  rest  oi 
the  apostles,  and  the  original  associates  of  Christ,  engaged  m  the 
propagation  of  the  new  faith  (and  who  there  is  not  the  least  reason 
to  believe  abated  in  their  diligence  or  courage),  the  narrative  pro¬ 
ceeds  with  the  separate  memoirs  of  that  eminent  teacher,  whose 
extraordinary  and  sudden  conversion  to  the  religion,  and  corre¬ 
sponding  change  of  conduct,  had  before  been  circumstantially  de- 
sciibed  This  person,  in  conjunction  with  another,  who  appeared 
among  the  earlier  members  of  the  society  at  Jerusalem,  and  amongst 


*  Acts  xi.  19. 


■j-  Acts  xii.  1. 


X  Acts  xii.  3—17 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  59 

the  immediate  adherents*  of  the  twelve  apostles,  set  out  from  An¬ 
tioch  upon  the  express  business  of  carrying  the  new  religion  throuerh 
the  various  provinces  of  the  Lesser  Asia.t  During  this  expedition 
we  find,  that  in  almost  every  place  lo  which  they  came,  their  per- 
sons  were  insulted,  and  their  lives  endangered.  After  being  ex¬ 
pelled  from  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  they  repaired  to  Iconium.J  At  Ico- 
niuin,  an  attempt  was  made  to  stone  them  ;  at  Lystra,  whither  they 
ned  from  Iconium,  one  of  them  actually  was  stoned  and  drawn  of 
out  of  the  city  for  dead.||  These  two  men,  though  not  themselves 
original  apostles,  were  acting  in  connexion  and  conjunction  witli 
the  original  apostles  ;  for  after  the  completion  of  their  journey,  be¬ 
ing  sent  on  a  particular  commission  to  Jerusalem,  they  there  related 
to  the  apostles$  and  elders  the  events  and  success  of  their  ministry, 
and  were,  m  return,  recommended  by  them  to  the  churches,  ‘  as 
men  who  had  hazarded  their  lives  in  the  cause.’ 
j treatment  which  they  had  experienced  in  the  first  progress, 
did  not  deter  them  from  preparing  for  a  second.  Upon  a  dispute 
however,  arising  between  them,  but  not  connected  with  the  com¬ 
mon  subject  of  their  labors,  they  acted  as  wise  and  sincere  men 
would  act ;  they  did  not  retire  in  disgust  from  the  service  in  which 
they  were  engaged,  but,  each  devoting  his  endeavors  to  the  ad¬ 
vancement  of  the  religion,  they  parted  from  one  another,  and  set 
torwards  upon  separate  routes.  The  history  goes  along  with  one  of 
them ;  and  the  second  enterprise  to  him  w'as  attended  with  the 
Mme  dangem  and  persecutions  as  both  had  met  with  in  the  first. 

1  he  apostle  s  travels  hitherto  had  been  confined  to  Asia.  He  now 
crosses,  for  the  first  time,  the  Aegean  Sea,  and  carries  with  him, 
amongst  others,  the  person  whose  accounts  supply  the  information 
we  are  stating.lF  The  first  place  in  Greece  at  which  he  appears  to 
have  stopped,  was  Philippi  in  Macedonia.  Here  himself  and  one 
ot  his  cornpanions  were  cruelly  whipped,  cast  into  prison,  and  kept 
there  under  the  most  rigorous  custody,  being  thrust,  whilst  yet 
smarting  with  their  wounds,  into  the  inner  dungeon,  and  their  feet 
made  fast  in  the  stocks.* § **  Notwithstanding  this  unequivocal  speci¬ 
men  of  the  usage  which  they  had  to  look  for  in  that  country,  they 
went  forward  in  the  execution  of  their  errand.  After  passing 
through  Amphipohs  and  Apollonia,  they  came  to  Thessalonica ;  in 
■which  city,  the  house  in  which  they  lodged  was  assailed  by  a  party 
of  their  enemies,  in  order  to  bring  them  out  to  the  populace.  And 
when,  fortunately  for  their  preservation,  they  were  not  found  at 
home,  the  master  of  the  house  w’as  dragged  before  the  magistrate 
tor  admitting  them  within  his  doors.tt  Their  reception  at  the  next 
city  was  something  better :  but  neither  had  they  continued  long  be- 
tore  their  turbulent  adversaries,  the  Jews,  excited  against  them 
such  commotions  amongst  the  inhabitants,  as  obliged  the  apostle  to 
make  his  escape  by  a  private  journey  to  Athens.#  The  extremity 


♦Actsiv.  36.  tActsxiii.  2. 

§  Acts  xiv.  19.  |(  Acts  xv,  12 — 26. 

**  Acts  xvi.  23,  24.  33.  #  Acts  xvii.  1—5. 


J  Acts  xiii.  51. 
ir  Acts  xvi.  11. 
H  Acts  xvii.  13. 


40  Paley^s  View  of  the 

of  the  progress  was  Corinth.  His  abode  in  the  city,  for  some  time, 
seems  to  have  been  without  molestation.  At  length,  hoyvever,  the 
Jews  found  means  to  stir  up  an  insurrection  against  him,  and  to 
bring  him  before  the  tribunal  of  the  Roman  president.*  It  was  to 
the  contempt  which  that  magistrate  entertained  for  the  Jews  and 
their  controversies,  of  which  he  accounted  Christianity  to  be  one, 
that  our  apostle  owed  his  deliverance.t 

This  indefatigable  teacher,  after  leaving  Corinth,  returned  by 
Ephesus  into  Syria;  and  again  visited  Jerusalem,  and  the  socie^ 
of  Christians  in  that  city,  which,  as  hath  been  repeatedly  observed, 
still  continued  the  centre  of  the  mission.!  It  suited  not,  however, 
with  the  activity  of  his  zeal  to  remain  long  at  Jerusalem.  We 
find  him  going  thence  to  Antioch,  and,  after  some  stay  there,  travers¬ 
ing  once  more  the  northern  provinces  of  Asia  Minor.§  This  progress 
ended  at  Ephesus ;  in  which  city,  the  apostle  continued  in  the  daily 
exercise  of  his  ministry  two  years,  and  until  his  success,  at  length, 
excited  the  apprehensions  of  those  who  were  interested  in  the  sup¬ 
port  of  the  national  worship.  Their  clamor  produced  a  tumult,  m 
which  he  had  nearly  lost  his  life.H  Undismayed,  however,  by  the 
dangers  to  which  he  saw  himself  exposed,  he  was  driven  from 
Ephesus  only  to  renew  his  labors  in  Greece.  After  passing  over 
Macedonia,  he  then  proceeded  to  his  former  station  at  Corinth.ir 
When  he  had  formed  his  design  of  returning  by  a  direct  course 
from  Corinth  into  Syria,  he  was  competed,  by  a  conspiracy  of  the 
Jews,  who  were  prepared  to  intercept  him  on  his  way,  to  trace  back 
his  steps  through  Macedonia  to  Philippi,  and  thence  to  take  ship¬ 
ping  into  Asia.  Along  the  coast  of  Asia,  he  pursued  his  voyage 
with  all  the  expedition  he  could  command,  in  order  to  reach  Jeru¬ 
salem  against  the  feast  of  Pentecost.**  His  reception  at  Jerusalem 
was  of  a  piece  with  the  usage  he  had  experienced  from  the  Jews  iii 
other  places.  He  had  been  only  a  few  days  in  that  city,  when  the 
populace,  instigated  by  some  of  his  old  opponents  in  Asia,  who 
attended  this  feast,  seized  him  in  the  temple,  forced  him  out  of  it, 
and  were  ready  immediately  to  have  destroyed  him,  had  not  the 
sudden  presence  of  the  Roman  guard  rescued  him  out  of  their 
hands.tt  The  officer,  however,  who  had  thus  seasonably  interposed, 
acted  from  his  care  of  the  public  peace,  with  the  preservation  of 
which  he  was  charged,  and  not  from  any  favor  to  the  apostle,  or 
indeed  any  disposition  to  exercise  either  justice  or  humanity  towards 
him ;  for  he  had  no  sooner  secured  his  person  in  the  fortress,  than 
he  was  proceeding  to  examine  him  by  torture.!! 

From  this  time  to  the  conclusion  of  the  histoiy,  the  apostle  remains 
in  public  custody  of  the  Roman  government.  After  escaping  assa^ 
sination  by  a  fortunate  discovery  of  the  plot,  and  delivering  himself 
from  the  influence  of  his  enemies  by  an  appeal  to  the  audience  of 


t  Acts  xviii.  15.  !  Acts  xviii.  22. 

|(  Acts  xix.  1.  9,  10.  IT  Acts  xx.  1,  2. 

++  Yvl  O’? 19  ++  A..*'’  -'-JJ  Od 


*  Acts  xviii.  12. 
§  Acts  xviii.  23. 
**  Acts  XX.  16. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  41 

the  emperor,*  he  was  sent,  but  not  till  he  had  suffered  tw'o  years’ 
imprisonment,  to  Rome.t  He  reached  Italy,  after  a  tedious  vovage 
and  after  encountering  m  his  passage  the  perils  of  a  desperate ‘'ship’ 
wreck.;  liut  although  still  a  prisoner,  and  his  fate  still  depending, 
neither  the  various  and  long-continued  sufferings  which  he  had 
undergone,  nor  the  danger  of  his  present  situation,  deterred  him 
from  persisting  in  preaching  the  religion;  for  the  historian  closes 
the  account  by  telling  us,  that,  for  two  years,  he  received  all  that 
came  unto  him  in  his  owm  hired  house,  where  he  was  permitted  to 
dwell  wmh  a  soldier  that  guarded  him,  ‘  preaching  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  teaching  those  things  which  concern  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
with  ail  confidence.’ 

Now  the  historian,  from  wLom  we  have  drawm  this  account,  in 
the  part  of  his  narrative  wdiich  relates  to  St.  Paul,  is  supported  by 
the  strongest  corroborating  testimony  that  a  history  can  receive. 
We  are  in  ^ssepion  of  letters  written  by  St.  Paul  himself  upon  the 
subject  of  his  ministry,  and  either  written  during  the  period  which 
the  history  coniprises,  or,  if  written  afterward,  reciting  and  referring 
to  the  trar^actions  of  that  period.  These  letters,  without  borrowing 
from  the  history,  or  the  history  from  them,  unintentionally  confirm 
the  account  which  the  history  delivers,  in  a  great  variety  of  partic- 
ulars.  What  belongs  to  our  present  purpose  is  the  description  ex- 
mbited  of  the  apostle’s  sufferings :  and  the  representation,  given  in 
the  histoiy,  of  the  dangers  and  distresses  which  he  underw'ent,  not 
only  agrees,  m  general,  with  the  language  which  he  himself  uses 
whenever  he  speaks  of  his  life  or  ministry,  but  is  also,  in  many 
instances,  attested  by  a  specific  correspondency  of  time,  place,  and 
order  of  events.  If  the  historian  put  down  in  his  narrative,  that  at 
rhihppi  the  apostle  ‘  was  beaten  with  many  stripes,  cast  into  prison, 
and  there  treated  with  rigor  and  indignity  we  find  him,  in  a  let- 
ter  to  a  neighboring  church,||  reminding  his  converts,  that  ‘  after  he 
had  sufrered  before,  and  was  shamefully  entreated  at  Philippi,  he 
was  bold,  nevertheless,  to  speak  unto  them  (to  whose  city  he  next 
came)  the  gospel  of  God.’  If  the  history  relate,ir  that  at  Thessalo- 
nica,  the  house  in  which  the  apostle  was  lodged,  when  he  first  came 
0  that  place,  was  assaulted  by  the  populace,  and  the  master  of  it 
dragged  before  the  magistrate  for  admitting  such  a  guest  within  his 
doors ;  the  apostle,  in  his  letter  to  the  Christians  of  Thessalonica 
calls  to  itoeir  remembrance  ‘  how  they  had  received  the  gospel  in 
much  affliction.’**  If  the  history  deliver  an  account  of  an  insurrec¬ 
tion  at  Lphesus,  which  had  nearly  cost  the  apostle  his  life ;  we  have 
me  apostle  himself,  in  a  letter  written  a^hort  time  after  his  departure 
rom  that  city,  describing  his  despair,  and  returning  thanks  for  his 
deliverance.tt  If  the  history  inform  us,  that  the  apostle  was  expelled 
irom  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  attempted  to  be  stoned  at  Iconium,  and 


*  Acts  XXV.  9.  II. 
§  Acts  xvi.  23j'24. 
**  1  Thess.  i.  6. 


t  Acts  xxiv.  27. 
'  1  Thess.  ii.  2. 


tf  Acts  xix. 
19 


2  Cor.  i.  8—10 


;  Acts  xxvii. 
IT  Acts  xvii.  5. 


D2 


42  Paley's  View  of  the 

actually  stoned  at  Lystra ;  there  is  preserved  a  letter  from  him  to  a 
favorite  convert,  whom,  as  the  same  history  tells  us,  he  first  met 
with  in  these  parts ;  in  which  letter  he  appeals  to  that  disciple  s 
knowledge  ‘  of  the  persecutions  which  befell  him  at  Antioch,  at  Ico- 
nium,  at  Lystra.’*  If  the  history  make  the  apostle,  in  his  speech  to 
the  Ephesian  elders,  remind  them,  as  one  proof  of  the  disinterested¬ 
ness  of  his  views,  that,  to  their  loiowledge,  he  had  supplied  his  own 
and  the  necessities  of  his  companions  by  personal  labor ;+  we  fmd 
the  same  apostle,  in  a  letter  written  during  his  residence  at  Ephesus, 
asserting  of  himself,  ‘  that  even  to  that  hour  he  labored,  working 

with  his  own  hands.’!  ,  .  .  *  r 

These  coincidences,  together  with  many  relative  to  other  parts  ot 
the  apostle’s  history,  and  all  drawn  from  independent  sources,  not 
only  confirm  the  truth  of  the  account,  in  the  particular  points  as  to 
which  they  are  observed,  but  add  much  to  the  credit  of  the  narra- 
tive  in  all  its  parts :  and  support  the  author’s  profession  of  being  a 
contemporary  of  the  person  whose  history  he  writes,  and  throughout 
a  material  portion  of  his  narrative,  a  companion.  .  „  r 

What  the  epistles  of  the  apostles  declare  of  the  suffenng  state  oi 
Christianity,  the  writings  which  remain  of  their  companions  and 

immediate  followers  expressly  confirm.  j.-.. 

Clement,  who  is  honorably  mentioned  by  Saint  Paul  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Philippians,^  hath  left  us  his  attestation  to  this  point,  in  the 
following  words :  ‘  Let  us  take  (says  he)  the  examples  of  our  own 
aee.  Through  zeal  and  envy,  the  most  faithful  and  righteous  pillars 
of  the  church  have  been  persecuted  even  to  the  nmst  grievous 
deaths.  Let  us  set  before  our  eyes  the  holy  apostles.  Veter,  by  un¬ 
just  enyy,  underwent,  not  one  or  two,  but  many  sufferings ;  till  at 
last,  being  martyred,  he  went  to  the  place  of  glory  that  was  due 
unto  him  For  the  same  cause  did  Paul,  in  like  manner,  receive 
the  reward  of  his  patience.  Seven  times  he  was  in  bonds ;  he  was 
whipped,  was  stoned ;  he  preached  both  in  the  East  and  in  the  West, 
leaving  behind  him  the  glorious  report  of  his  faith;  and  so  having 
taueht  the  whole  world  righteousness,  and  for  that  end  travelled 
even  unto  the  utmost  bounds  of  the  West,  he  at  last  suffered  mar- 
tvrdora  by  the  command  of  the  goyernors,  and  departed  out  of  the 
world,  and  went  unto  his  holy  place,  being  become  a  most  eminent 
pattern  of  patience  unto  all  ages.  To  these  holy  apostles  were 
joined  a  very  great  number  of  others,  who,  having  through  envy 
undergone,  in  like  manner,  many  pains  and  torments,  have  left  a 
glorious  example  to  us.  For  this,  not  only  men,  but  women,  have 
been  persecuted;  and,  having  suffered  very  grievous. and  cruel 
punishments,  have  finished  the  course  of  their  faith  wigi  firmness.  J 
^  Hermas,  saluted  by  Saint  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  in  a 
piece  very  little  connected  with  historical  recitals,  thus  speaks- 


*  Acts  xiii.  50.  xiv.  5. 19.  2  Tim.  iii.  10, 11. 
t  1  Cor.  iv.  11, 12.  ^  „ 

II  Clem,  ad  Cor.  c.  v.  vi.  Adp.  Wake’s  Trans. 


t  Acts  XX.  34. 

§  Philipp,  iv.  3. 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 


48 

Such  as  ha\j  believed  and  suffered  death  for  the  name  of  Christ 

disciple  of  John  (though  all  that  remains  of  his 
works  be  a  very  short  epistle,)  has  not  left  this  subject  umioticpi 
1  exhort  (says  he)  all  of  you,  that  ye  obey  the  vs-ord  of  righteous¬ 
ness,  and  exercise  all  patience,  whicli  ye  hive  seen  set  fbnh  before 
vour  eyes,  not  only  in  the  blessed  Ignatius,  and  Lorimus  “nd  Ss 
but  m  others  among  yourselves,  and  in  Paul  himself  and7he 

faii?''bm  hi  confident  in  this,  that  all  these  have  not  run  in 
\ain,^  but  in  faith  and  righteousness;  and  are  gone  to  the  nlace  that 
was  cue  to  them  from  the  Lord,  with  whom  also  they  suffLed  For 

Si 

spirit),  they  (?..  e.  Peter,  and  those  who  were  present  with  Peter  at 

Would  TeSSS'  If  “*•  found  ,o  be  a£,ve  it.i 

T  1^1  e  reader  know  what  a  persecution  in  these  days  was 
I  would  refer  him  to  a  circular  letter,  written  by  tS  chwch Tf 

death  of  Polycarp,  who,  it  will  be  reniem 
liered,  had  lived  with  Saint  John;  and  which  letter  is  entitled  a  re 
thp^ntu^  bishop  s  martyrdom.  ‘  The  sufferings  (say  they)  of  all 
the  other  martyrs,  were  blessed  and  generous,  whicli  thev  nndpi- 
went  according  to  the  will  of  God.  For  so  it  becomes  us  Uo  ad' 
more  religious  than  others,  to  ascribe  the  power  and  orderina-  of  all 
thmgs  unto  him.  And  indeed  who  can  choose  Lt  Su-e  thP 

fhS  Ma'stCT  whfch  Ih?’  Padence  and  love  of 

laeir  Master,  which  then  appeared  in  them?  Who  when  tfipiT- wpi-o 

»  &yed  with  whipping,  that  .he  fra,ne  and  struSure  oOheiS bS 

SrSri'n'lil'eSaT''  “r"*  Series,  nevTrSS 

beasts  and  kpnt  n  Inn  e  ’■  condemned  to  the 

oeasts,  and  kept  a  long  time  in  prison,  underwent  many  cruel  tor- 

CHAP.  V. 

Observations  on  the  Preceding  Evidence. 

Ihe^re  tt  f  "adapter  contains  an  abstract 

mere  are  a  few  observations  which  it  may  be  proner  to  makp  S 

Sh  *e  pa/dcula^r  proposition^  fo? 


t  Pol.  ad  Phil.  c.  ix. 

§  Pel.  Mor.  Pol.  c  ii. 


t  Hermas,  c  xxviii. 

;  ly  iijp.  Sniyr.  c.  iii. 


44  Paleifs  View  of  the 

I.  Althoueh  our  Scripture  history  leaves  the  general  account  of 

the  aposllesln  an  earlj  part  of  the  narrative,  f^mation 

separate  account  of  one  particular  apostle,  yet  the  inlormation 
which  it  delivers  so  far  extends  to  the  rest,  as  it  shows  the  nature^ 
the  service.  When  we  see  one  apostle  suffenng  per^cution  in  the 
dischar«-e  of  his  commission,  we  shall  not  believe,  without  evidence, 

that  the  same  office  could,  at  the  same  time,  ®on- 

nnfl  safetv  to  others.  And  this  fair  and  reasonable  inlerence  is  con 
“m3  bTthe  direct  attestation  of  the  letters,  to  which  we  have  so 
nfipn  referred.  The  writer  of  these  letters  not  only  alludes,  in 
numerous  passages,  to  his  own  sufferings,  speaks  of  the  rest  of 
the  anostles  as  enduring  like  sufferings  with  himself.  I 
Cod  hath  set  forth  us  the  apostles  last,  as  it  were,  appointed  to  dea  , 
fofwe  m-e  mSe  fspec^  unto  the  world  and  to  angels,  and  to 
nien*— even  unto  this  present  hour,  we  both  hunger  and  thirst,  and 
Se  naked!  and  are  buffeted,  and  have  no  certain  dwelling-place ; 
and  labor,  working  with  our  own  hands :  being  we  bless^ 

beinff  persecuted,  we  suffer  it;  being  defamed,  we 
mad!  L  the  filth  of  the  world,  and  as  the  offscouring  of  all  things 
unto  this  day.’*  Add  to  which,  that  in  the  short  account  that  is  giv  en 
of  the  other  apostles  in  the  former  part  of  the  histoij,  and  wthi 
the  short  period  which  that  account  comprises,  -we  find,  first,  two  ot 
them  seized  imprisoned,  brought  before  the  Sanhedrim,  and  threat¬ 
ened  whh  farS  punishmenttt  then,  the  whole  number  imprisoned 
and  beaten  :t  soon  afterward,  one  of  their  adherents  stoned  to  death, 
and  2  ho?a  persecution  raised  against  the  sect,  as  to  drive  most  of 

them  out  o?&ace;  a  short  time  only  succeeding,  before  one  of 

the  twelve  was  beheaded,  and  another  sentenced  to  the  same  fate , 
Ind  ah  tffis  passing^  the  single  city  of  Jerusalem,  and  witlnn  ten 
years  after  the  Founder’s  death,  and  the  commencement  of  the  in- 

stitution.^  take  no  credit  at  present  for  the  miraculous  part  of  the 

narrative  nor  do  we  insist  upon  the  correctness  of  single  passages 
nariative,  nor  p  ^  romance ;  the  whole  ac- 

ln\  dreamTi?Pete7and  James,  and  Paul,  and  the  rest  of  the 
apostles  mentioned  in  the  account,  be  not  all  imaginary  persons ,  if 
ffiS  letters  be  not  all  forgeries,  and,  what  is  more  forgeries  of 
names  aSd  characters  which  never  existed ;  then  is  their  evidence 
•  Vinnd^  sufficient  to  support  the  only  fact  we  contend  for  (and 
“hich  I  ±3“^  in TtLlf.  highly  ^bable),  that  the  ongtn. 
followers  oF  Jesul  Christ  exerted  peat  endeavors  to  proffS"® 
religion,  and  underwent  great  labors,  dangers,  and  sufferings, 

Tl'’The'Ee3erafkhl.>™f^^^^^^  con¬ 

firmed  bvth?  consideration.  that  it,  in  truth,  does  no  more  than  as- 
sifi-n  adeauate  causes  for  effects  which  certainly  were  produced,  and 
Srite  consequences  naturally  resulting  from  situaPons  which 
certainly  existel  The  effects  were  certainly  these,  of  which 

■j-  Acts  iv.  3.  21. 


*  1  Cor.  iv.  9,  &c. 


J  Acts  V.  18.  40. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  45 

history  sets  forth  the  cause,  and  origin,  and  progress.  It  is  acknow¬ 
ledged  on  all  hands,  becau.se  it  is  recorded  by  other  testimony  than 
that  of  the  Christians  themselves,  that  the  religion  began  to  jirevail 
at  that  time,  and  in  that  country.  It  is  very  difficult  to  conceive 
how  It  could  begin,  or  prevail  at  all,  without  the  exertions  of  the 
Founder  and  his  followers  in  propagating  the  new  persuasion.  The 
history  now’  in  our  hands  describes  these  exertions,  the  persons  em¬ 
ployed,  the  means  and  endeavors  made  use  of,  and  the  labors  under¬ 
taken  in  the  prosecution  of  this  purpose.  Again,  the  treatment 
which  the  history  represents  the  first  propagators  of  the  religion  to 
have  experienced,  was  no  other  than  what  naturally  resulted  from 
the  situation  in  which  they  were  confessedly  placed.  It  is  admitted 
that  the  religion  was  adverse,  in  a  great  degree,  to  the  reigning 
opinions,  and  to  the  hopes  and  wishes  of  the  nation  to  which  it  was 
first  introduced  ^  and  that  it  overthrew,  so  far  as  it  was  received, 
the  established  theology  and  worship  of  every  other  country.  We 
cannot  feel  much  reluctance  in  believing,  that,  when  the  mes¬ 
sengers  of  such  a  system  went  about  not  only  publishing  their 
opinions,  but  collecting  proselytes,  and  forming  regular  societies  of 
proselytes,  they  should  meet  wdth  opposition  in  their  attem,pts,  or 
that  this  opposition  should  sometimes  proceed  to  fatal  extremities. 
Our  history  details  examples  of  this  opposition,  and  of  the  sufferino-s 
and  dangers  w’hich  the  emissaries  of  the  religion  underwent,  per- 
fectly  agreeable  to  what  might  reasonably  be  expected  from  the 
nature  of  their  undertaking,  compared  with  the  character  of  the  age 
and  country  in  which  it  was  carried  on. 

IV.  The  records  before  us  supply  evidence  of  what  formed 
another  member  of  our  general  proposition,  and  what,  as  hath 
already  been  observed,  is  highly  i)robabJe,  and  almost  a  necessary 
consequence  of  their  new’  profession;  viz.  that,  together  with  ac¬ 
tivity  and  courage  in  propagating  the  religion,  the  primitive  follow’’- 
ers  of  Jesus  assumed,  upon  their  conversion,  a  new  and  peculiar 
course  of  private  life.  Immediately  after  their  Master  was  with- 
draw’n  from  them,  we  hear  of  their  ‘  continuing  with  one  accord  in 
prayer  and  supplication  of  their  ‘  continuing  daily  with  one  accord 
m  the  temple ;’t  of  ‘many  being  gathered  togetlier  prqying.’t  We 
know  w’hat  strict  injunctions  were  laid  upon  the  converts  by  their 
teachers.  Wherever  they  came,  the  first  word  of  their  preaching 
was,  ‘Repent!’  We  know  that  these  injunctions  obliged  them  to  re¬ 
frain  from  many  species  of  licentiousness,  which  were  not,  at  that 
lime,  reputed  criminal.  We  know  the  rules  of  purify,  and  the 
maxims  of  benevolence,  which  Christians  read  in  their  books  ;  con¬ 
cerning  which  rules,  it  is  enough  to  observe,  that,  if  they  were,  I 
will  not  s^  completely  obeyed,  but  in  any  degree  regarded,  they 
would  produce  a  system  of  conduct,  and,  what  is  more  difficult  tc 
preserve,  a  disposition  of  mind,  and  a  regulation  of  affections,  dif 
thing  to  which  they  had  hitherto  been  accustomed 
and  different  from  what  they  woultl  see  in  others.  The  change  ano. 


*  .4cts  i.  14. 


t  Acts  ii.  40. 


I  Acts  xii.  1^, 


Paley’s  View  of  the 


46 

distinction  of  manners,  which  resulted  from  their  new  character,  is 
nerpetually  referred  to  in  the  letters  of  their  teachers.  And  you 
hath  he  quickened,  who  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sms,  therein 
ye  walked,  according  to  the  course  of  this  word  ac^ 
cording  to  the  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air,  the  ^ 

workefh  in  the^ children  of  disobedmnce :  among  ^^om  also  we 
had  our  conversation  in  times  past,  in  the  lusts  of  our  hesh,  tut 
liim  the  desires  of  the  flesh,  and  of  the  mind,  and  were  by  nature 

I'h?  chMren'f  wrath,  even  as  t'oenSle  the" 

we  walked  in  lasciviousness  lusts,  excess 
quetings,  and  abominable  idolatries;  wherein 

that  verun  not  with  them  to  the  same  excess  of  not.  feaint  ^^uul,  m 
hiffnst  Ster  o  the  Corinthians,  after  enumerating  as  his  manner 
IvL  f  cSgue  of  vicioas  characters,  adds  ‘Such  .cere  »nte  of 
•  hnt  VP  -ire  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified,  t  In  like  manner, 
Ind’ alluding  to  the  same  change  of  practices  and 
asks  the  Roman  Christians,  ‘what  fruit  they  had  lu  those  thi  g  , 
whereof  they  are  noio  'ashamed  !’$  The  phrases  which  the  same 
wrifPT  emnlovs  to  describe  the  moral  condition  of  Christians,  com¬ 
pared  with  their  condition  before  they  became  Ch^istons  such  as 
‘newness  of  life,’  being  ‘  freed  from  sin,  being  dead  to  sin , 
desSon  of  the  body  of  sin,  for  the  future,  they  should  not 
^erve  sin  •’  ‘  children  of  light,  and  of  the  day,’  as  opposed  to  ch  il¬ 
dren  of  darkness  and  of  the  night;’  ‘  ^Jle^^erieTof 

at  least,  a  new  system  of  obligation,  and,  probably,  a  new  series  oi 

""^ThTl’eSmSIy  ThicTR  the  behavior  of  the  new 

sect  in  his  S  and  which  testimony  comes  not  more  than 
vears  after  that  of  Saint  Paul,  is  very  applicable  to  the  subject  un- 
conshiemtion.  The  chamcter  Uch  this  writer  gives  of  the 
Christians  of  that  age,  and  which  was  drawn  fi-om  a  pretty  accurate 
fnquSricaSfl  insidered  their  moral  princ^  es  as  thy  omt 
in  which  the  magistrate  was  interested,  is  as  foUows  -—He  tells  the 
emneror  ‘  that  some  of  those  who  had  relinquished  the  society,  o 
who  to  save  themselves,  pretended  that  they  had  relinquished  i  , 
alfirmed  that  they  were  wont  to  meet  together,  on  a  stated  day,  - 

gSil  rl't'd  .he 

rfrrrrSb?rroi“ 

rarmoX'Set^S  SullUnau 

m  the  ag^e  of  the  apostles;  because  it  is  not  probable  that  the  imm 

t  1  Pet.  iv.  3,  4. 

§  Rom.  vi.  31. 


*  Eph.  ii.  1—3.  See  also  Tit.  iii.  3. 
f  1  Cor.  vi.  11. 


Evidences  of  Christianity,  '  47 

diale  hearers  and  disciples  of  Christ  were  more  relaxed  than  their 
successors  in  Pliny’s  time,  or  the  missionaries  of  the  religion  than 
those  whom  they  taught. 


CHAP.  VI. 

That  the  Story,  for  which  the  first  Propagators  of  Christianity  suf 

fered,  was  miraculous. 

When  we  consider,  first,  the  prevalency  of  the  religion  at  this 
hour ;  secondly,  the  only  credible  account  which  can  be  given  of 
Its  origin,  viz.  the  activity  of  the  Founder  and  his  associates ;  thirdly, 
the  opposition  which  that  activity  must  naturally  have  excited ; 
fourthly,  the  fate  of  the  Fomider  of  the  religion,  attested  by  heathen 
wnmrs  a^vell  as  our  own ;  fifthly,  the  testimony  of  the  same  writers 
to  the  sufferings  of  Christians,  either  contemporary  with,  or  imme¬ 
diately  succeeding,  the  original  settlers  of  the  institution;  sixthly, 
predictions  of  the  sufferings  of  his  followers  ascribed  to  the  Founder 
of  the  religion,  which  ascription  alone  proves,  either  that  such  pre¬ 
dictions  were  delivered  and  fulfilled,  or  that  the  writers  of  Christ’s 
life  were  induced  by  the  event  to  attribute  such  predictions  to  him ; 
seventhly,  letters  now  in  our  jwssession,  written  by  some  of  the 
principal  agents  in  the  transaction,  referring  expressly  to  extreme 
labors,  dangers,  and  sufferings,  sustained  by  themselves  and  their 
companions ;  lastly,  a  history  purporting  to  be  written  by  a  fellow- 
traveller  ofone  of  the  new  teachers,  and,  by  its  unsophisticated  cor- 
resjiondency  with  letters  of  that  person  still  extant,  proving  itself  to 
be  written  by  some  one  well  acquainted  with  the  subject  of  the 
narrative,  vvhich  history  contains  accounts  of  travels,  persecutions, 
and  martyrdoms,  answering  to  what  the  former  reasons  led  us  to 
expect :  when  we  lay  together  these  considerations,  which,  taken 
separately,  are,  I  think,  correctly,  such  as  I  have  stated  them  in  the 
preceding  chapters,  there  cannot  much  doubt  remain  upon  our 
minds,  but  that  a  number  of  persons  at  that  time  appeared  in  the 
world,  publicly  advancing  an  extraordinary  story,  and,  for  the  sake 
ot  jiropagating  the  belief  of  that  story,  voluntarily  incurring  great 
personal  dangers,  traversing  seas  and  kingdoms,  exerting  great  in¬ 
dustry  and  sustaining  great  extremities  of  ill  usage  and  persecution. 
It  is  also  proved,  that  the  same  persons,  in  consequence  of  their 
persuasion,  or  pretended  persuasion,  of  the  truth  of  what  they  as- 
fifng^  1  upon  a  course  of  life  in  many  respects  new  and 

From  the  clear  and  acknowledged  parts  of  the  case,  I  think  it  to 
be  likewise  in  the  highest  degree  probable,  that  the  story,  for  which 
these  persons  voluntarily  exposed  themselves  to  the  fatigues  and 
lordships  which  they  endured,  was  a  miracidous  story ;  1  mean, 
that  the5r  pretended  to  miraculous  evidence  of  some  kind  or  other. 

hey  had  nothing  else  to  stand  upon.  The  designation  of  the  per¬ 
son,  that  IS  to  say,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  rather  than  any  other 


48  Paley^s  View  of  the 

person,  was  the  Messiah,  and  as  such  the  subject  of  their  ministry 
could  only  be  founded  upon  supernatural  tokens  attributed  to  him. 
Here  were  no  victories,  no  conquests,  no  revolutions,  no  surprising 
elevation  of  fortune,  no  achievements  of  valor,  of  strength,  or  of 
policy,  to  appeal  to ;  no  discoveries  in  any  art  or  science,  no  great 
efforts  of  genius  or  learning  to  produce. 

A  Galilean  peasant  was  announced  to  the  w’orld  as  a  divine  law¬ 
giver.  A  young  man  of  mean  condition,  of  a  private  and  simple 
life,  and  who  had  wrought  no  deliverance  for  the  Jewish  nation, 
was  declared  to  be  their  Messiah.  This,  without  ascribing  to  him 
at  the  same  time  some  proofs  of  his  mission,  (and  what  other  but 
supernatural  proofs  could  there  be  ?)  was  too  absurd  a  claim  to  be 
either  imagined,  or  attempted,  or  credited.  In  whatever  degree,  or 
in  whatever  part,  the  religion  was  argumentative,  when  it  came  to 
the  question,  ‘  Is  the  carpenter’s  son  of  Nazareth  the  person  whom 
we  are  to  receive  and  obey  ?’  there  was  nothing  but  the  miracles 
attributed  to  him,  by  which  his  pretensions  could  be  maintained  for 
a  moment.  Every  controversy  and  every  question  must  presup¬ 
pose  these ;  for,  however  such  controversies,  when  they  did  arise, 
might,  and  naturally  would,  be  discussed  upon  their  own  grounds 
of  argumentation,  without  citing  the  miraculous  evidence  which 
had  been  asserted  to  attend  the  Founder  of  the  religion  (which 
would  have  been  to  enter  upon  another,  and  a  more  general  ques¬ 
tion),  yet  we  are  to  bear  in  mind,  that  without  previously  supposing 
the  existence,  or  the  pretence  of  such  evidence,  there  could  have 
been  no  place  for  the  discussion  of  the  argument  at  all.  Thus,  for 
example,  whether  the  prophecies,  which  the  Jews  interpreted  to 
belong  to  the  Messiah,  were,  or  were  not,  applicable  to  the  history 
of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  was  a  natural  subject  of  debate  in  those 
times ;  and  the  debate  w^ould  proceed,  without  recurring  at  every 
turn  to  his  miracles,  because  it  set  out  with  supposing  these  ;  inas¬ 
much  as  without  miraculous  marks  and  tokens  (real  or  pretended), 
or  without  some  such  great  change  effected  by  his  means  in  the 
public  condition  of  the  country,  as  might  have  satisfied  the  then  re¬ 
ceived  interpretation  of  these  prophecies,  I  do  not  see  how  the 
question  could  ever  have  been  entertained.  Apollos,  we  read, 
‘  mightily  convinced  the  Jews,  showing  by  the  Scriptures  that  Jesus 
was  Christ;’*  but  unless  Jesus  had  exhibited  some  distinction  of 
his  person,  some  proof  of  supernatural  power,  the  argument  from 
the  old  Scriptures  could  have  had  no  place.  It  had  nothing  to  at¬ 
tach  upon.  A  young  man  calling  himself  the  Son  of  God,  gathering 
a  crowd  about  him,  and  delivering  to  them  lectures  of  morality, 
could  not  have  excited  so  much  as  a  doubt  among  the  Jews, 
whether  he  was  the  object  in  whom  a  long  series  of  ancient  proph¬ 
ecies  terminated,  from  the  completion  of  which  they  had  formed 
such  magnificent  expectations,  and  expectations  of  a  nature  so  op¬ 
posite  to  what  appeared  ;  I  mean,  no  such  doubt  could  exist  when 
they  had  the  whole  case  before  them,  when  they  saw  him  put  to 


•'  Acts  xviii  Jh 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  49- 

death  for  his  officiousness,  and  when  by  his  death  the  evidepce 
concerning  him  was  closed.  Again,  the  effect  of  the  Messiah’s 
coming,  supposing  Jesus  to  have  been  he,  upon  Jews,  upon  Gen¬ 
tiles,  upon  their  relation  to  each  other,  upon  their  acceptance  with 
God,  upon  their  duties  and  their  expectations;  his  nature,  authority, 
office,  and  agency ;  were  likely  to  become  subjects  of  much  con¬ 
sideration  with  the  early  votaries  of  the  religion,  and  to  occupy 
their  attention  and  writings.  I  should  not  however  expect,  that  in 
these  disquisitions,  whether  preserved  in  the  form  of  letters, 
speeches,  or  set  treatises,  frequent  or  very  direct  mention  of  his 
miracles  would  occur.  Still,  miraculous  evidence  lay  at  the  bottom 
of  the  argument.  In  the  primary  question,  miraculous  pretensions, 
and  miraculous  pretensions  alone,  were  what  they  had  to  rely 
upon. 

That  the  original  story  was  mii'aculous,  is  very  fairly  also  inferred 
from  the  miraculous  powers  which  were  laid  claim  to  by  the  Chris¬ 
tians  of  succeeding  ages.  If  the  accounts  of  these  miracles  be  true, 
it  was  a  continuation  of  the  same  powers ;  if  they  be  false,  it  was 
in  imitation,  I  will  not  say,  of  what  had  been  wrought,  but  of  what 
had  been  reported  to  have  been  wrought,  by  those  who  preceded 
them.  That  imitation  should  follow  reality,  fiction  should  be  grafted 
upon  truth ;  that,  if  miracles  were  performed  at  first,  miracles  should 
be  pretended  afterward ;  agrees  so  well  with  the  ordinary  course 
of  human  affairs,  that  we  can  have  no  great  difficulty  in  believing 
it.  The  contrary  supposition  is  very  improbable,  namely,  that  mira¬ 
cles  should  be  pretended  to  by  the  followers  of  the  apostles  and  first 
emissaries  of  religion,  when  none  were  pretended  to,  either  in  their 
own  persons  or  that  of  their  Master,  by  these  apostles  and  emissa¬ 
ries  themselves. 

CHAP.  VII. 

That  it  was  in  the  main  the  Story  which  we  have  now  proved,  by  indi¬ 
rect  Considerations. 

It  being  then  once  proved,  that  the  first  propagators  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  institution  did  exert  activity,  and  subject  themselves  to  grea 
dangers  and  sufferings,  in  consequence,  and  for  the  sake  of  an  extra 
ordinary',  and,  I  think  we  mav  say,  of  a  miraculous  story  of  some 
kind  or  other;  the  next  great  question  is.  Whether  the  account 
which  our  Scriptures  contain,  be  that  story ;  that  which  these  men 
delivered,  and  for  which  they  acted  and  suffered  as  they  did  ?  This 
question  is,  in  effect,  no  other  than  whether  the  story  which  Chris¬ 
tians  have  now,  be  the  story  w'hich  Christians  had  then  ?  And  of 
this  the  following  proofs  may  be  deduced  from  general  considera¬ 
tions  prior  to  any  inquiry  into  the  particular  reasons  and  testimonies 
by  which  the  authority  of  our  histories  is  supported. 

In  the  first  place,  there  exists  no  trace  or  vestige  of  any  other 
story  It  is  not,  like  the  death  of  Cyrus  the  Great,  a  competition 
between  optxtsite  accounts,  or  betw’een  the  credit  of  different  histo- 

E 


50  Palsy's  View  of  the 

rians.  There  is  not  a  document,  or  scrap  of  account,  either  contem¬ 
porary  with  the  commencement  of  Christianity,  or  extant  wilnin 
many  ages  after  that  commencement,  which  assigns  a  history  sub¬ 
stantially  differing  from  ours.  The  remote,  brief,  and  incidental 
notices  of  the  affair,  which  are  found  in  heathen  writers,  so  far  as 
they  do  go,  go  along  with  us.  They  bear  testimony  to  these  facts 
that  the  institution  originated  from  Jesus ;  that  the  Founder  was  put 
to  death,  as  a  malefactor,  at  Jerusalem,  by  the  authority  of  the  Ro¬ 
man  governor,  Pontius  Pilate  ;  that  the  religion  nevertheless  spread 
in  that  city,  and  throughout  Judea;  and  that  it  was  propagated 
thence  to  distant  countries ;  that  the  converts  were  numerous ;  that 
they  suffered  great  hardships  and  injuries  for  their  profession;  and 
that  all  this  took  place  in  the  age  of  the  world  which  our  books 
have  assigned.  They  go  on  fan  tier,  to  describe  the  manners  of 
Christians,  in  terms  perfectly  conformable  to  the  accounts  extant  in 
our  books ;  that  they  were  wont  to  assemble  on  a  certain  day ;  that 
they  sang  hymns  to  Christ  as  to  a  god ;  that  they  bound  themselves 
by  an  oath  not  to  commit  any  crime,  but  to  abstain  from  theft  and 
adultery,  to  adhere  strictly  to  their  promises,  and  not  to  deny 
money  deposited  in  their  hands  f  that  they  worshipped  him  who 
was  crucified  in  Palestine ;  that  this  their  first  lawgiver  had  taught 
them  that  they  were  all  brethren ;  that  they  had  a  great  contempt 
for  the  things  of  this  world,  and  looked  upon  them  as  common ;  that 
they  flew  to  one  another’s  relief;  that  they  cherished  strong  hopes 
of  immortality ;  that  they  despised  death,  and  surrendered  them¬ 
selves  to  sufferings.’t  This  is  the  account  of  writers  who  viewed 
the  subject  at  a  great  distance ;  who  were  uninformed  and  unin¬ 
terested  about  it.  It  bears  the  characters  of  such  an  account  upon 
the  face  of  it,  because  it  describes  effects,  namely,  the  appearance 
in  the  world  of  a  new  religion,  and  the  conversion  of  great  multi¬ 
tudes  to  it,  without  descending,  in  the  smallest  degree,  to  the  detail 
of  the  transaction  upon  which  it  was  founded,  the  interior  of  the 
institution,  the  evidence  or  arguments  offered  by  those  who  drew 
over  others  to  it.  Yet  still  here  is  no  contradiction  of  our  story ;  no 


*  See  Pliny’s  Letter. — Bonnet,  in  his  lively  way  of  expressing  himself, 

gays^ _ ‘  Comparing  Pliny’s  Letter  with  the  account  in  the  Acts,  it  seems 

to  me  that  I  had  not  taken  up  another  author,  but  that  I  was  stilt  read- 
in"  the  historian  of  that  extraordinary  society.’  This  is  strong :  but 
there  is  undoubtedly  an  affinity,  and  all  the  affinity  that  could  be  ex- 

jg  incredible  what  expedition  they  use  when  any  of  their  friends 
are  known  to  be  in  trouble.  In  a  word,  they  spare  nothing  upon  such  an 
occasion  : — for  these  miserable  men  have  no  doubt  they  shall  be  immortal 
and  live  for  ever :  therefore  they  contemn  death,  and  many  surrender 
themselves  to  sufferings.  Moreover,  their  first  lawgiver  has  taught  them 
that  they  are  all  brethren,  when  once  they  have  turned  and  renounced 
the  "ods  of  the  Greeks,  and  worship  this  Master  of  theirs  who  was  cru¬ 
cified,  and  engage  to  live  according  to  his  laws.  They  have  also  a  sove- 
reign'contempt  for  all  the  things  of  this  world,  and  look  upon  them  as 
common,’— Lucian,  de  Morte  Peregrini,  t.  i.  p.  505.  ed.  Grajv, 


Evidences  of  Christianity^^ 


-r 

oilier  or  different  story  set  up  against  it :  but  so  far  a  confirmation 
of  it,  as  that,  in  the  general  points  on  which  the  heathen  account 
touches,  it  agrees  with  that  which  we  find  in  our  owm  books. 

The  same  may  be  observed  of  the  very  few  Jewish  writers,  of 
that  and  the  adjoining  period,  which  have  come  down  to  us.  What¬ 
ever  they  omit,  or  whatever  difficulties  we  may  find  in  explaining 
the  omission,  they  advance  no  other  history  of  the  transaction  than 
that  which  we  acknowledge.  Josephus,  who  wrote  his  Antiquities, 
or  History  of  the  Jews,  about  sixty  years  after  the  commencement 
of  Christianity,  in  a  passage  generally  admitted  as  genuine,  makes 
mention  of  John,  under  the  name  of  John  the  Baptist;  that  he  wcg 
a  preacher  of  virtue ;  that  he  baptized  his  proselytes ;  that  he  was 
well  received  by  the  people ;  that  he  was  unprisoned  and  put  to 
death  by  Herod ;  and  that  Herod  lived  in  a  criminal  cohabitation 
with  Herodias  his  brother’s  wife.^  In  another  passage,  allowed  by 
many,  although  not  without  considerable  question  being  moved 
about  it,  we  hear  of ‘James,  the  brother  of  him  who  was  called 
Jesus,  and  of  his  being  put  to  death.’!  In  a  third  passage,  extant  in 
every  copy  that  remains  of  Josephus’s  History,  but  the  authenticity 
of  \yhich  has  nevertheless  been  long  disputed,  we  have  an  explicit 
testimony  to  the  substance  of  our  history  in  these  words  : — ‘  At  that 
time  lived  Jesus,  a  wise  man,  if  he  may  be  called  a  man,  for  he  per¬ 
formed  many  wonderful  works.  He  was  a  teacher  of  such  men  as 
received  the  truth  with  pleasure.  He  drew  over  to  him  many  Jews 
and  Gentiles.  This  was  the  Christ ;  and  when  Pilate,  at  the  insti¬ 
gation  of  the  chief  men  among  us,  had  condemned  him  to  the  cross, 
they  who  before  had  conceived  an  affection  for  him,  did  not  cease 
to  adhere  to  him :  for,  on  the  third  day,  he  appeared  to  them  alive 
again ;  the  divine  prophets  having  foretold  these  and  many  wonder¬ 
ful  things  concerning  him.  And  the  sect  of  the  Christians,  so  called 
from  him,  subsist  to  this  time.’!  Whatever  becomes  of  the  contro- 
"versy  concerning  the  genuineness  of  this  passage;  whether  Jose¬ 
phus  go  the  whole  length  of  our  history,  which,  if  the  passage  be 
sincere,  he  does ;  or  whether  he  proceed  only  a  very  little  way  with 
us,  which,  if  the  passage  be  rejected,  w^e  confess  to  be  the  case ; 
still  what  we  asserted  is  true,  that  he  gives  no  other  different  his 
toty  of  the  subject  from  ours,  no  other  or  different  account  of  the 
origin  of  the  institution.  And  I  think  also  that  it  may  with  great 
reason  be  contended,  either  that  the  passage  is  genuine,  or  that  the 
silence  of  Josephus  was  designed.  For,  although  we  should  lay 
aside  the  authority  of  our  own  books  entirely,  yet  when  Tacitus, 
who  wrote  not  twenty,  perhaps  not  ten,  years  after  Josephus,  in  his 
account  of  a  period  m  which  Josephus  was  nearly  thirty  years  of 
age,  tells  us,  that  a  vast  multitude  of  Christians  were  condemned 
at  Rome;  that  they  derived  their  denomination  from  Christ,  who,  in 
the  reign  of  Tiberius,  was  put  to  death,  as  a  criminal,  by  the  procu- 


*  Antiq.  1.  xviii.  cap.  v.  sect.  1,2. 
!  Antiq.  1.  xviii.  cap.  iii,  sect,  J. 


t  Antiq.  1.  xx.  cap.  ix.  sect.  1 


52 


Paley's  View  of  the 

rator,  Pontius  Pilate;  that  the  superstition  had  spread  not  only  over 
Judea,  the  source  of  the  evil,  but  had  reached  Rome  also when 
Suetonius,  an  historian  contemporary  with  Tacitus,  relates  timt,  in 
the  time  of  Claudius,  the  Jews  were  making  disturbances  at  Rome, 
Christus  being  their  leader ;  and  that,  during  the  reign  of  Nero,  the 
Christians  were  punished ;  under  both  which  emperors  Josephus 
lived  when  Pliny,  who  wrote  his  celebrated  epistle  not  more  than 
thirty  years  after  the  publication  of  Josephus’s  history,  found  the 
Christians  in  such  numbers  in  the  proyince  of  Bithynia,  as  to  diaw 
from  him  a  complaint,  that  the  contagion  had  seized  cities,  towns, 
and  yillages,  and  had  so  seized  them  as  to  produce  a  general  deser¬ 
tion  of  the  public  rites  ;  and  when,  as  has  alrea,dy  been  obser\  e  , 
there  is  no  reason  for  imagining  that  the  Christians  were  more 
numerous  in  Bithynia  than  in  many  other  parts  of  the  Roman  em¬ 
pire  :  it  cannot,  I  should  suppose,  after  this,  be  believed,  that  the  re- 
lio^ion,  and  the  transaction  upon  which  it  was  founded,  were  too  ob¬ 
scure  to  engage  the  attention  of  Josephus,  or  to  obtain  a  place  in 
his  history.  Perhaps  he  did  not  know  hovy  to  represent  the  business, 
and  disposed  of  his  difficulties  by  passing  it  over  in  silence.  Eusebius 
wrote  the  life  of  Constantine,  yet  omits  entirely  the  most  remarka¬ 
ble  circumstance  in  that  life,  the  death  of  his  son  Crispus ;  undou 
edly  for  the  reason  here  given.  The  reserve  of  Josephu?  upon  the 
subiect  of  Christianity  appears  also  in  his  passing  over  the  banish¬ 
ment  of  the  Jews  by  Claudius,  which  Suetonius,  we  j^a^e  seen, 
has  recorded  with  an  express  reference  to  Christ.  Phis  is  at  least 
as  remarkable  as  his  silence  about  the  infants  of  Bethlehem.  Be, 
however,  the  fact,  or  the  cause  of  the  omission  in  Josephus,t  what 
it  may,  no  other  or  different  history  on  the  subject  has  been  given 
by  him,  or  is  pretended  to  have  been  giyen. 

But  farther ;  the  whole  series  of  Christian  writers,  from  the  first 
age  of  the  institution  down  to  the  present,  in  their  ffiscussions, 
apologies,  arguments,  and  controversies,  proceed  upon  the  genera 
story  which  Lr  Scriptures  contain,  and  upon  no 
faci  the  principal  agents,  are  alike  m  all.  This  ^^^Sument  will  p 
pear  to  be  of  great  force,  when  it  is  known  that  we  are  able  to  trace 
back  the  series  of  writers  to  a  contact  with  the  historical  books  of 

*  Michaelis  has  computed,  and,  as  it  should  seem,  fairly  enough,  that 
nrobablv  not  more  than  twenty  children  perished  by  this  cruel  precamtion. 
SklmeL^s  Srod^^^^  to  the  New  Testament,  translated  by  Marsh. 

vol.  1.  c.  ii.  sect.  11. 

+  There  is  no  notice  taken  of  Christianity  in  the  Misna,  a  collection  of 
Jelvish  tradhions  compiled  about  the  year  180;  although  it  contains  a 
tract  ‘De  cultii  peregrino,’  of  strange  or  idolatrous  worship,  jet  it  can 
not  be  di^puted^but  that  Christianity  wms  perfectly  well  known  in  the 
world  at  this  time.  There  is  extremely  little  notice  of  the  subject  in  the 
TerusaSm  Talmud,  compiled  about  the  year  300  and  not  much  more  in 
the  Babylonish  Talmud,  of  the  year  500;  although  both  these  v\ oiks  are 
of  a  reli<Tious  nature,  and  althoiurh,  when  the  first  was  compiled,  blni.  - 
tianity  was  on  the  point  of  becoming  the  religion  of  the  state,  and,  when 
the  latter  tvas  published,  had  been  so  for  200  years 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  53 

the  New  Testament,  and  to  the  age  of  the  first  emissaries  of  the 
religion,  and  to  deduce  it,  by  an  unbroken  continuation,  from  that 
end  of  the  train  to  the  present. 

The  remaining  letters  of  the  apostles  (and  what  more  original 
than  letters  can  we  have?)  though  written  without  the  re 
molest  design  of  transmitting  the  history  of  Christ,  or  of  Christianity, 
to  future  ages,  or  even  of  making  it  known  to  their  contemporaries, 
incidentally  disclose  to  us  the  following  circumstances : — Christ’s 
descent  and  family ;  his  innocence ;  the  meekness  and  gentleness 
of  his  character  (a  recognition  which  goes  to  the  whole  Gospel  his¬ 
tory);  his  exalted  nature;  his  circumcision;  his  transfiguration;  his 
life  of  opjiosition  and  suffering ;  his  patience  and  resignation ;  the 
appointment  of  the  eucharist,  and  the  manner  of  it ;  his  agony ;  his 
confession  before  Pontius  Pilate ;  his  stripes,  crucifixion,  and  burial  ; 
his  resurrection ;  his  appearance  after  it,  first  to  Peter,  then  to  the 
rest  of  the  apostles ;  his  ascension  into  heaven,  and  his  designation 
to  be  the  future  judge  of  mankind ; — the  stated  residence  of  the 
apostles  at  Jerusalem;  the  w'orking  of  miracles  by  the  first  preach¬ 
ers  of  the  gospel,  w-ho  were  also  the  hearers  of  Christ  the  suc- 
ce.ssful  propagation  of  the  religion;  the  persecution  of  its  followers; 
the  miraculous  conversion  of  Paul ;  miracles  wrought  by  himself, 
and  alleged  in  his  controversies  with  his  adversaries,  and  in  letters 
to  the  persons  amongst  whom  they  were  wrought;  finally,  that 
MIRACLES  were  the  signs  of  an  apostle.f 

In  an  epistle  bearing  the  name  of  Barnabas,  the  companion  of 
Paul,  probably  genuine,  certainly  belonging  to  that  age,  we  have 
the  sufferings  of  Christ,  his  choice  of  apostles  and  their  number,  his 
passion,  the  scarlet  robe,  the  vinegar  and  gall,  the  mocking  and 
piercing,  the  casting  lots  for  his  coat,J  his  resurrection  on  the  eighth 
{i.  e.  the  first  day  of  the  week),§  and  the  commemorative  distinction 
of  that  day,  his  manifestation  after  his  resurrection,  and,  lastly,  his 
ascension.  We  have  also  his  miracles  generally  but  positively  re¬ 
ferred  to  in  the  following  words  :  ‘  Finally ,  teaching  the  people  of 


*  Heb.  ii.  3;  ‘How  shall  we  escape,  if  we  neglect  so  great  salvation, 
which,  at  the  first,  began  to  be  spoken  by  the  Lord,  and  was  confirmed 
unto  us  by  them  that  heard  him,  God  also  bearing  them  witness,  both  with 
signs  and  wonders,  and  with  divers  miracles,  and  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost!’ 
I  allege  this  Epistle  without  hesitation;  for,  whatever  doubts  may  have 
been  raised  about  its  author,  there  can  be  none  concerning  the  age  in 
which  it  was  written.  No  epistle  in  the  collection  carries  about  it  more 
indubitable  marks  of  antiquity  than  this  does.  It  speaks,  for  instance, 
throughout,  of  the  temple  as  then  standing,  and  of  the  worship  of  the 
temple  as  then  subsisting— Heb.  viii.  4 ;  ‘ For,  if  he  were  on  earth,  he 
should  not  be  a  priest,  seeing  there  are  priests  that  offer  according  to  the 
law.’— Again,  Heb.  xiii.  10;  ‘We  have  an  altar  whereof  they  have  no 
right  to  eat  which  serve  the  tabernacle.’ 

t ‘Truly  the  signs  of  an  apostle  were  wrought  among  you  in  all 
patience,  in  signs,  in  wonders,  and  mighty  deeds.’  2  Cor.  xii.  12. 

1  Ep.  Bar.  c.  vii.  §  Ep.  Bar.  c.  vi. 


E2 


54 


Paley's  View  of  the 


Israel,  and  doing  many  wonders  and  signs  among  he  Pleached 
to  dSm,  and^^sltowed  the  exceeding  great  love  which  he  bare  to- 

'^Tn  an^eTstle  of  Clement,  a  hearer  of  Saint  Paul,  although  written 
foi  a  purpose  Remotely  connected  with  the  Christian,  history  ^ve 
Lve  the  Resurrection  oT  Christ,  and  the  subseqimnt  mission  of  the 
awRtles  reRRS  these  satisfacton.  terms :  ‘The  apostles  have 
SSd  S  us  from  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  from  Godj-for  having 
received  their  command,  and  being  thoroughly  assuredly 
Son  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  they  went  abroad,  publishing  that 
[heTngdZ  of  God  was  at  hand.’t  We  find  noticed  also,  th^e 
humihtf,  yet  the  power  of  Christ,!  his  descent  from  Abraham,  his 
cmcifixion.  We  have  Peter  and  Paul  represented  as  faithM  and 
rifrhteous  pillars  of  the  church;  the  numerous  sufferings  of  Peter  , 
the  bondsRstripes,  and  stoning  of  Paul,  and,  more  particularly,  i 

of  *oog'' 

brief  hortatory  letter,  we  have  the  humility,  patience,  sufferings,  re- 
SrecS  and  ascension,  of  Christ,  together  with  the  apos tohc 
character  of  Saint  Paul,  distinctly  recognized.5  Of  this  same  father 
we  are  als^aiured  by  fren^us,  iat  he  (Iren^us)  had  heard  him  re¬ 
late,  ‘  what  he  had  received  from  eye->atnesses  concerning  the 
Lord,  both  concerning  his  miracles  and  his  doctrine.  II 

In  the  remaining  works  of  Ignatius,  the  contemporary  of  Poly- 
car?,  brgeXn  tlJse  of  Polyca?p  (yet  like 

ine  of  subjects  in  nowise  leading  to  any  recital  of  ‘^he  Ctastmn 
torv)  the  occasional  allusions  are  proportion  ably  more  numerous. 
The  descent  of  Christ  from  David,  his  mother  Mary,  his  miraculous 
conception,  the  star  at  his  birth,  his  baptism  by  John,  the  reason  ^s- 
sio-ned  for  it,  his  appeal  to  the  prophets,  the  ointment  poured  on  his 
heRd  his  sufferings^under  Pontius  Pilate  and  Herod  the  tetrarch, 
his  resurrection,  the  Lord’s  day  called  and  kept  in  commemoi  atio 
of  it,  and  the  eucharist,  in  both  its  parts— are  unequivocally  referred 
to.  Upon  the  resurrection,  this  writer  is  even  circumstantial.  He 
mentions  the  apostles’  eating  and  drinking  with  Christ  after  he  had 
risen  their  feeling  and  their  handling  him;  from  which  last  circunn 

Sance  iSatiRs  raises  this  just  reflection  They  believed,  being 

convinced  both  by  his  flesh  and  spirit ;  for  this  cause,  they  despised 
rlpnth  and  were  found,  to  bo  EibovG  it.  IT  _  «  i  ^  n 

Quadra tus  of  the  same  age  with  Ignatius,  has  left  us  the  follow¬ 
ing  noblR  testimony ‘  The  works  of  our  Saviour  were  always  con- 
sniuous  fOT  they  we^^  real;  both  those  that  were  healed,  and 
those  that  were  raised  from  the  dead ;  who  were  seen  not  only 
when  they  were  healed  or  raised,  but  for  a  long  time  afterwar  , 
not  only  whilst  he  dwelled  on  this  earth,  but  also  after  hisde^ 


*  Ep.  Bar.  c.  v.  t  EP-  Clem.  Rom.  c.  xlii. 
Pol.  Ep.  ad  Phil.  c.  v.  viii.  ii.  iii. 

Ir.  ad  Flor.  ap.  Euseb.  1.  v.  c.  20. 


I 


X  Ep.  Clem.  Rom.  c.  xvi. 
TT  Ad  Smyr.  c.  iii. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  55 

ture,  and  for  a  good  while  after  it,  insomuch  that  some  of  them  have 
reached  to  our  times.’* 

Justin  Martyr  came  little  more  than  thirty  years  after  Quadratus. 
From  Justin’s  works,  which  are  still  extant,  might  be  collected  a 
tolerably  complete  account  of  Christ’s  life,  in  all  points  agreeing 
with  that  which  is  delivered  in  our  Scriptures ;  taken  indeed,  in  a 
great  measure,  from  those  Scriptures,  but  still  proving  that  this  ac¬ 
count,  and  no  other,  was  the  account  known  and  extant  in  that  age. 
The  miracles  in  particular,  which  form  the  part  of  Christ’s  history 
most  material  to  be  traced,  star,  filly  and  distinctly  recognized  in 
the  following  passage  : — ‘He  ht  i*  1  those  who  had  been  blind,  and 
(leaf,  and  lame,  from  their  birth  using,  by  his  word,  one  to  leap, 
another  to  hear,  and  a  third  to  and  by  raising  the  dead,  and 
making  them  to  live,  he  induced.  ’  his  works,  the  men  of  that  age 
to  know  him.’t 

It  is  unnecessary  to  carry  these  citations  lower,  because  the  his- 
toiy,  after  this  time,  occurs  in  ancient  Christian  writings  as  famil¬ 
iarly  as  it  is  wont  to  do  in  modern  sermons ; — occurs  always  the 
same  in  substance,  and  alwaj'^s  that  which  our  evangelists  repre¬ 
sent 

This  is  not  only  true  of  those  writings  of  Christians,  which  are 
genuine,  and  of  acknowledged  authority ;  but  it  is,  in  a  great  mea¬ 
sure,  true  of  all  their  ancient  writings  which  remain ;  although 
some  of  these  may  have  been  erroneously  ascribed  to  authors  to 
whom  they  did  not  belong,  or  may  contain  false  accounts,  or  may 
appear  to  be  undeserving  of  credit,  or  never  indeed  to  have  ob¬ 
tained  any.  Whatever  fables  they  have  mixed  with  the  narrative, 
they  preserve  the  material  parts,  the  leading  facts,  as  we  have 
thern;  and  so  far  as  they  do  this,  although  they  be  evidence  of 
nothing  else,  they  are  evidence  that  these  points  were  fixed,  were 
received  and  acknciwledged  by  all  Christians  in  the  age  in  which 
the  books  were  written.  At  least,  it  may  be  asserted,  that  in  the 
places  where  we  were  most  likely  to  meet  with  such  things,  if  such 
things  had  existed,  no  relics  appear  of  any  story  substantially  differ¬ 
ent  from  the  present,  as  the  cause  or  as  the  pretence  of  the  insti¬ 
tution. 

Now  that  the  original  story,  the  story  delivered  by  the  first 
preachers  of  the  institution,  should  have  died  away  so  entirely  as 
to  have  left  no  record  or  memorial  of  its  existence,  although  so 
many  records  and  memorials  of  the  time  and  transaction  remain  ; 
and  that  another  story  should  have  stepped  into  its  place,  and 
gained  exclusive  possession  of  the  belief  of  all  who  professed  them¬ 
selves  disciples  of  the  institution,  is  beyond  any  example  of  the 
corruption  of  even  oral  tradition,  and  still  less  consistent  with  the 
experience  of  written  history :  and  this  improbability,  which  is  very 
great,  is  renciered  still  greater  by  the  reflection,  that  no  such  change 
as  the  oblivion  of  one  story,  and  the  substitution  of  another,  took 


*  Ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  lib.  iv.  c.  3. 

1  Just.  Dial.  cum.  Tryph.  p.  S38.  ed.  Thirl. 


56 


Paley's  View  of  the 

place  in  any  future  period  of  the  (Christian  era.  Christianity  hath 
travelled  through  dark  and  turbulent  ages ;  nevertheless,  it  came 
out  of  the  cloud  and  the  storm,  such  in  substance,  as  it  entered  in. 
Many  additions  w^ere  made  to  the  primitive  history,  and  these  enti¬ 
tled  to  different  degrees  of  credit;  many  doctrinal  errors  also  vi’ero 
from  lime  to  time  grafted  into  the  public  creed ;  but  still  the  origi 
nal  story  remained,  and  remained  the  same.  In  all  its  principal 
parts,  it  has  been  fixed  from  the  beginning. 

Thirdly  •  The  religious  rites  and  usages  that  prevailed  amongsi 
the  early  disciples  of  Christianity  were  such  as  belonged  to,  and 
sprung  out  of,  the  narrative  in  our  hands ;  which  accordancy  shows 
that  it  was  the  narrative  upon  which  these  j^rsons  acted,  and 
which  they  had  received  from  their  teachers.  Our  account  makes 
the  Founder  of  the  religion  direct  that  his  disciples  should  bo 
baptized.  We  know  that  the  first  Christians  were  baptized 
Our  account  makes  him  direct,  that  they  should  hold  religious 
assemblies:  we  find  that  they  did  hold  religious  assemblies.  Our 
accounts  make  the  apostles  asseinble  upon  a  stated  dj  of  the 
week:  we  find,  and  that  from  information  perfectly  independent 
of  our  accounts,  that  the  Christians  of  the  first  century  did  observe 
stated  days  of  assembling.  Our  histories  record  the  institution  ot 
the  rite  which  we  call  the  Lord’s  supper,  and  a  command  to  repeal 
it  in  perpetual  succession :  we  find  amongst  the  early  Christians,  the 
celebration  of  this  rite  universal.  And,  indeed,  we  find,  concurring 
in  all  the  above-mentioned  observances,  Christian  societies  of  many 
different  nations  and  languages,  removed  from  one  another  by  a 
great  distance  of  place,  and  dissimilitude  of  situation.  It  is  also  ex 
tremely  material  to  remark,  that  there  is  no  room  for  insinuating 
that  our  books  were  fabricated  with  a  studious  accommodation  to 
the  usages  which  obtained  at  the  time  they  were  written ;  that  the 
authors  of  the  books  found  the  usages  estobhshed,  and  framed  the 
story  to  account  for  their  original.  The  Scnpture  accounts  espe- 
daily  of  the  Lord’s  supper  are  too  short  and  cursory,  not  to  say  too 
obscure,  and,  in  this  view,  deficient,  to  a^Jow  a  place  for  any  such 

^^Amorgst  the  proofs  of  the  truth  of  tfJs  proposition,  viz.  that  the 
story  which  we  have  now  is,  in  substance,  the  story  which  the 
Christians  had  then,  or,  in  other  worJs,  that  the 
Gospels  are,  as  to  their  principal  parts  at  least,  the  accounts  which 
the  apostles  and  original  teachers  of  the  ^^hgion  dehvered  one 
arises  from  observing  that  it  appears  by  the  Gopiels  ‘ 

the  story  was  public  at  the  time;  that  the  Christian  community 
was  already  in  possession  of  the  substance  and  principal  P^^^^s  ^f 
the  narrative.  The  Gospels  were  not  the  original  cause  of  the 
Christian  history  being  believed,  but  were  themselves  among  the 

*  The  reader,  who  is  conversant  in  these  researches,  by  comparing 
the  short  Scripture  accounts  of  the  Christian 

the  minute  and  circumstantial  directions  contained  in  the  Prided 
apostolical  constitutions,  will  see  the  force  of  this  observation;  the  dif¬ 
ference  between  truth  and  forgery. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  57 

OTiisequences  of  lhat  belief.  This  is  expressly  affirmed  by  St.  Luke, 
in  his  brief,  but,  as  1  think,  very  important  and  instructive,  preface  : 
‘  Forasmuch  (says  the  evangelist)  as  many  have  taken  in  hand  to 
set  forth  in  order  a  declaration  of  those  things  which  are  most  surely 
believed  amongst  us,  even  as  they  delivered  them  unto  us,  which  fom 
the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses,  and  ministers  of  the  word  ;  it  seemed 
good  to  me  also,  having  had  perfect  understanding  of  all  things 
from  the  very  first,  to  write  unto  thee  in  order,  most  excellent  The- 
ophilus,  that  thou  mightest  know  the  certainty  of  those  thing's 
wherein  thou  hast  been  instructed: short  introduction  testifies 
that  the  substance  of  the  history  which  the  evangelist  was  about  to 
write,  was  already  believed  by  Christians;  that  it  was  believed 
upon  the  declaration  of  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word  ; 
that  It  formed  the  account  of  their  religion  in  which  Christians 
weie  hiStructed ;  lhat  the  office  w'hich  the  historian  proposed  to 
himself,  was  to  trace  each  particular  to  its  origin,  and  to  fix  the 
certainty  of  many  things  which  the  reader  had  before  heard  of.  In 
bt.  John’s  Gospel,  the  same  point  appears  hence,  that  there  are 
some  principal  facts  to  which  the  historian  refers,  but  which  he 
does  not  relate.  A  remarkable  instance  of  this  kind  is  the  asceri- 
sion,  which  IS  not  mentioned  by  Saint  John  in  its  place,  at  the  con¬ 
clusion  of  his  history,  but  which  is  plainly  referred  to  in  the  follow¬ 
ing  words  of  the  sixth  chapter:*  ‘What  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son 
01  man  ascend  up  where  he  was  before?’  And  still  more  po*sitively 
in  the  \yords  which  Christ,  according  to  our  evangelist,  spoke  to 
Mair  after  his  resurrection,  ‘  Touch  me  not,  for  I  am  not  yet  as¬ 
cended  to  my  Father:  but  go  unto  my  brethren,  and  .say  unto  them, 

1  ascend  unto  my  Father  and  your  Father,  unto  my  God  and  your 
God.  t  This  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  the  supposition  that 
baint  John  wrote  under  a  sense  of  the  notoriety  of  Christ’s  ascen¬ 
sion,  amongst  those  by  whom  his  book  was  likely  to  be  read.  The 
same  account  must  also  be  given  of  Saint  Mathews’s  omission  of  the 
same  important  fact.  The  thing  was  very  well  known,  and  it  did 
nol  occur  to  the  historian  that  it  w'as  necessary  to  add  any  particu- 
lars  concerning  it.  It  agrees  also  with  this  solution  and  with  no 
other,  that  neither  Matthew  nor  John  disposes  of  the  person  of  ou 
Gird  in  any  manner  whatever.  Other  intimations  in  Saint  John’s 
Gospel  of  the  then  general  notoriety  of  the  story  are  the  following'  r 
His  manner  of  introducing  his  narrative,  (ch.  1.  ver.  15.)  ‘John  bare 
witness  of  him,  and  cried,  saying’ — evidently  presupposes  that  his 
readers  knew  who  John  was.  His  rapid  parenthetical  reference  to 
John  s  imprisonment,  ‘  for  John  was  not  yet  cast  into  prison,’!  could 
pnH  come  from  a  writer  whose  mind  was  in  the  habit  of  consider- 
-John’s  imprisonment  as  perfectly  notorious.  The  description  of 
Andrew  by  the  addition  ‘  Simon  Peter’s  brother, ’$  takes  it  for 
panted,  that  Simon  Peter  was  well  known.  His  name  had  not 
been  mentioned  before.  The  evangelist’s  noticing!!  the  prevailing 


*  Also  John  ii.  13,  and  xvi.  28. 

X  John  iii.  24.  §  John  ii.  40. 

20 


t  John  XX.  17. 

II  John  xxi.  24. 


58 


Paley^s  View  of  the 


Srpmv”  ta" 

^  tL^Vom?’  ci?cumstances ;— first,  the 

iLtratroT-4=J^ 

fourthly,  our  account  bearing,  in  its  construction,  Pf 
account  of  facts  which  were  known  '^’"dbeheved  at  the^hm^ 

“iSSS^^s’s^jrr 

same  in  its  texture,  and  m  its  principal  f^cts- 

no  doubt,  for  the  reason  above  stated,  but Jhayhe  Shan  stow 

the  Founder  of  the  religion  was  always  Pf  ‘  ^  P^nv  one  who 

TVnr  ran  a  doubt  of  this  remain  upon  the  mind  ol  any  one 

nn“"eS  hie,  we  eho.ld  ha.e  a  — - 
to  offer ;  for  we  should  have  to  allege,  that  m  the  rtogn  of  Jibenu^ 
Caesar,  a  certain  number  Persons  set  about  a 

which  they  published  Xw^lisTf^  they  had  followed  and 
tion  of  a  dead  man,  whom  during  ^i-  ■nothin^’  in 

accompanied,  was  a  aS’eorance  of  reasom  be 

tTuS:  S^of  .he  human  species 

similar  to  it. 


CHAP.  VIII. 


That  it  was  in  the  main  the  Story 

authority  of  our  historical  bcnptures. 


'Tuh'v  the  storv  which  we  have  now  is,  in  the  mam,  tb® 
which  the  apostles  published,  is,  I  think,  wSn  w 

considerations  which  bave  been  propos  .  histories 

come  to  the  particulars,  and  the  detail  of  the  narrative,  me  nisi 
bZks  of  the  New  Testament  be  deserving  of  credit  as  bistor  es.^ 

H!.rS"Hr£aFi;«::. 

accounts,  which,  true  or  laise,  me  p  u  .1  .  jg  ^  pgi 

their  authority,  in  either  of  these  views,  can  be  trusted  ,  P 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 


59 

the  books,  and 

JVow,  in  treating  of  this  part  of  our  argument,  the  first  and  mndt 
material  observation  upon  the  subject  is,  that  such  was  the  situation 

1  onheZ.r%r'’“”  are  ascrS,  thatlTaw 

r-^n  •  j  ^  genmne,  it  is  sufficient  for  our  nuroose  The 

of  Jerufalem  at  the  second  was  an  inhabhant 

resort  and  ^  to  whose  house  the  apostles  were  wont  to 

that  nir  T  £  upon  one  of  the  most  eminent  of 

paffion  an^felW  ^  com- 

panion  and  tellow-traveller  of  the  most  active  of  all  the  teachers 

of  the  reh^on,  and,  in  the  course  of  his  travels,  frequently  in  the 

K  3°as  'trfthS?  5”"“®®'  7^®  “>*»'■  of  the  four*, 

den™  of  the  trnth^f  ,  ?■  ,  “P®'®"'  N”  Wronger  evi- 

histnri-iTi  th^  ^  histoty  can  arise  from  the  situation  of  the 

livS  «  t  t-  offered.  The  authors  of  all  the  histories 

S  The  authors  of  two  of  the  his- 

eve  wit  pi'^ent  at  many  of  the  scenes  which  they  describe  • 
eye-witnesses  of  the  facts,  ear-witnesses  of  the  discourses  •  writing 
rom  personal  knowledge  and  recollection;  and,  St  stren^ffienf 
writing  upon  a  subject  in  which  their  minds®  were 
deeply  engaged,  and  in  which,  as  they  must  have  been  veiw  frP 
Sw^bfw  accounts  to  otherj  the  passages  of  the  hfstory 

tlip  Po  1^  /P*  continually  alive  in  their  memory.  Whoever  reaS 
will^fin  In  ought  to  be  read  for  this  particular  purpose), 

J^Lrs  bitdemdpJ'p-^^^^^^^  affirmation  of  miracSlo^s 

S^at?on.  nf  ^  ^  circumstantial  accounts  of  miracles,  with  spe- 
and  vSi^  and  persons;  and  these  accounts  muny 

Matthew  and  therefore,  wdiich  bear  the  names  of 

lattnew  and  John,  tliese  narratives,  if  they  really  proceeded  fr  im 

the  fidehtj  rhuman  recS^ 
ancT  anTffi  ^Ton,  that  is,  mult  be  true  ffi  sub- 

POSP  nf  •  pnncipal  parts  (which  is  sufficient  for  the  pur- 

meditatid  ^  supernatural  agency),  or  they  must  be  wilful  and 
thei^St^  h  writers  who  fabricated  and  uttere 

unfpl^i  n^niber  of  those,  S 

Hfilf  ^  the  whole  contexture  of  the  Christian  story  be  a  dream  ^ac 

safety  in  the  cause  and  for  a  purpose  the  most 
Villainfr”^  n  possible  with  dishonest  intentions.  They  were 

easTpro?ne?t"n?^  honesty,  and  martyrs  witho^urSe 

prospect  of  honor  or  advantage. 

not  tL  although 

that  onlxf  eye-witnesses,  are,  if  genuine,  removed  froin 

Wi  e™  ^of  7'"®^  ?'®  *®  of  contemporary 

two  ^ohnuT  T  •  th5!mselves  mixing  with  the  business;  one  of  the 
action  -  the  place  which  was  the  principal  scene  of 

those  who  Tia habits  of  society  and  correspondence  with 

The  lalter  transactions  which  they  relate, 

iue  latter  of  tliem  accordingly  tells  us,  rand  with  apparent  sincerity, 


60 


Foley's  View  of  the 


because  he  tells  authm  ^ 

without  claimiug  for  his  work  gr  phri‘?tinTi«  came  from 

Lt  the  things  Ihich  were  beheved  Sfe  of 

those  who  from  the  beginning  ^  their  source;  and  that 

the  word ;  that  he  had  traced  accounts  up  o  t^eir  s^ou 

he  was  prepared  to  ^^^^''‘^^l^JJtories  lie  so  close ^o  their  tacts; 
which  he  related.  Very  few  h  .  i  tUg  subiect  of  their 

very  few  historians  are  tv^gntic  information  as  these, 

narrative,  or  possess  such  mean.  ,  iruili  of  the  facts  which 

The  ehuation  of  the  writers  “  *e  (rutt^ot 

they  record.  But  at  presentwe  use  their  [he  Gospels,  whether 

short  of  this,  namely,  that  the  fac  which  the  original 

ttue  or  false,  are  the  facts,  and  *e  sort  ol  concerned 

StlnSnle  wS,  publishing  a  s^^^^ 

rry 

called  upon  mankind  to  qu  n  new  system  of  opinions, 

educated,  and  to  take  up,^he„o  ?„-»J,Cn  of  ie  ac- 

and  new  rules  of  action.  W  .  which  these  accounts 

counts,  that  is,  in  support  of  a  voluntarily  exposed 

were  the  foundation,  is,  tha  r  tobors  dangers,  and  suffer-' 

themselves  to  harassing  perpetual 

ings.  We  want  to  knoAV  wha  two  of  their  own  number. 

Ctve'lUmfZ^rrn— 

rc“tbp=K-« 

of  the  rest;  and  wh^  ^  opiate  the  things  which  had  been  de 
telling  us  that  he  is  about  to  eye-witnesse 

livered  by  those  who  were  ^ion  can  be  more  satisfac 

of  the  facts.  I  do  not  know  what  ^^formatmn^can  oe^  ^  ^ 

tory  than  this.  We  we  should  have  bee: 

it  more  sensibly,  if  we  red  ?  sufficiently  proved,  that  th 

if  we  had  wanted  it.  Supposi  g  ,  .  gjiginafto  the  preachin 

religion  now  professed  among  us,  eighteen  centurif 

and  ministry  of  a  ^p’  astern  of  rdigious  opinion 

£de1  ^  ccrtS^  -^?!irdinT.ytg  which  thiy  related  of 


.  Why  should  not  the  candid  and  n,o  J«  pmface  of  iK'ffof  Coi 

Su'sl'  •  tSS  TmS  a^nd 'the  -'TJc^Vo'S 

rdo:hrb"L°th"paSare,'  lescribo  truly  enough  the  situation 
the  authors. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  61 

wonderful  person  who  had  appeared  in  Judea;  suppose  it  to  be 
also  sufficiently  proved,  that,  in  the  course  and  prosecution  of  their 
ministry,  these  men  had  subjected  themselves  to  extreme  hardships, 
fatigue,  and  peril ;  but  suppose  the  accounts  which  they  published 
had  not  been  committed  to  writing  till  some  ages  after  their  times, 
or  at  least  that  no  histones,  but  what  had  been  composed  some  ages 
afterward,  had  reached  our  hands ;  we  should  have  said,  and  with 
reason,  that  we  were  willing  to  believe  these  men  under  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  in  which  they  delivered  their  testimony,  but  that  we 
did  not,  at  this  oay,  know  with  sufficient  evidence  what  their  testi¬ 
mony  was.  Had  we  received  the  particulars  of  it  from  any  of  their 
own  number,  from  any  of  those  who  lived  and  conversed  with  them, 

contemporaries, 

we  should  have  had  something  to  rely  upon.  Now,  if  our  books  be 
genuine,  we  have  all  these.  We  have  the  very  species  of  informa¬ 
tion  which,  as  It  appears  to  me,  our  imagination  w’ould  have  carved 
out  lor  us,  II  It  had  been  wanting. 

But  I  have  said,  that,  if  any  one  of  the  four  Gospels  be  genuine, 
we  have  not  only  direct  historical  testimony  to  the  point  we  con¬ 
tend  for,  but  testimony  which,  so  far  as  that  point  is  concerned,  can 
not  reasonably  be  rejected.  If  the  first  Gospel  was  really  written 
by  Matthew,  we  have  the  narrative  of  one  of  the  number,  from 

the  miracles,  and  the  kind  of  miracles, 
which  the  apostles  attributed  to  Jesus.  Although,  for  argument’s 
1 1’  y  argument’s  sake,  we  should  allow  that  this  Gos- 

pel  had  been  erroneously  ascribed  to  Matthew;  yet,  if  the  Gospel 
ot  baint  John  be  genuine,  the  observation  holds  with  no  less 
Jreng  h.  Again,  although  the  Gospels  both  of  Matthew  and  John 

F®.  spurious,  yet,  if  the  Gospel  of  Saint  Luke 
were  truly  the  composition  of  tKat  person,  or  of  any  person,  be  his 
It  might,  who  was  actually  in  the  situation  in  which  the 
nFi  Gospel  professes  himself  to  have  been,  or  if  the  Gos¬ 

pel  which  bears  the  name  of  Mark  really  proceeded  from  him;  we 
smi  even  upon  the  low'est  supposition,  possess  the  accounts  of  one 
writer  at  least,  who  was  not  only  contemporary  with  the  apostles, 
but  associated  with  them  in  their  ministry;  which  authority  seems 
si^cient,  when  the  question  is  simply  what  it  was  which  these 
apostles  advanced. 

I  think  it  material  to  have  this  well  noticed.  The  New  Testa- 
ment  contains  a  great  number  of  distinct  writings,  the  genuineness 
ot  any  one  of  which  is  almost  sufficient  to  prove  the  truth  of  the 
religion :  it  contains,  however,  four  distinct  histories,  the  genuine¬ 
ness  of  any  one  of  which  is  perfectly  sufficient.  If,  therefore,  we 
must  be  considered  as  encountering  the  risk  of  error  in  assigning 
e  authors  of  our  books,  we  are  entitled  to  the  advantage  of  so 
probabilities.  And  although  it  should  appear  that 
®  *^ue  evangelists  had  seen  and  used  each  other’s  works,  this 
.  ,  ’  .  subtracts  indeed  from  their  characters  as  testi- 
s>^rictly  independent,  diminishes,  I  conceive,  little,  either 
separate  authority  (by  wffiich  I  mean  the  authority  of  any  one 

Y 


02  Palsy's  View  of  the 

that  is  genuine),  or  their  mutual  confirmation.  For,  let  the  ^o^t 

fe'XSwhan 

Slurfand  to  U  Sofa  momeS  bJ  th^so  his- 

f  e”;  not  in  act,  written  by  Matthew  and  Luke ;  yet,  tf  i  to 
true  that  Mark,  a  contemporary  of  the 

society  with  the  apostles,  a  fellow-traveller  and  fellow-laborer  wim 
«nmp  of  them-  if  I  say,  it  be  true  that  this  person  made  the  coni 

pilation,  it  follows,  that  the  writings  from  wMch  he 

El  the  time  of  the  apostles,  and  not  only  so,  but  that  Jhey  were  h 

bi  R-ich  esteem  and  credit,  that  a  companion  of  the  aposties  lormea 

a  history  out  of  them.  Let  the  Gospel  of  Mark  be 

of  that  of  Matthew ;  if  a  person  in  the  situation  m  which  Mark 

Sefibed  to  have  been,  Tctually  made  the  epitome,  U  affords  the 

strongest  possible  attestation  to  the  “X  wder  of 

A  frail!  narallelisms  in  sentences,  in  words,  and  in  the  oraer  oi 
worls  havfeen  traced  out  between  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  and 
that  of  Luke ;  which  concurrence  cannot  easily  be 

wise  than  ^’supposing,  either  th  Luke  had  cmisulted  MaUh^^^^^^^ 

history  or  what  appears  to  me  in  nowise  incredible,  that  rai^utes 
of  some  of  Christ’s  discourses,  as  well  as  brief  memoirs  of  some 
passages  of  his  life,  had  been  committed  to  writing  at  the  time,  arid 
tlmt  such  written  accounts  had  by  both  authors  been  occasionally 
Vfrimittpd  into  their  histories.  Either  supposition  is  perfectly  con- 
Atent  f  ttohe  acknowledged  formation  of  Saint  Luke’s  narrahve, 
who  professes  not  to  write  as  ^y^'^hness,  but  to  have  mve^^^^^ 
B-ated*  the  original  of  every  account  which  he  delivers ,  in  other 
words  to  haEe  collected  them  from  such  documents  and  testimonies 
as  he  who  had  the  best  opportunities  of  making  inquiries,  judged  to 
be  authentic  Therefore,  allowing  that  this  writer  also,  in  some  in¬ 
stances,  W  Ihe  Gospll  which  we  call  Matthew’s  and 

once  more  allowing,  for  the  sake  of  stating  the  argument,  that  tha 
Gospel  was  not  the  production  of  the  author  to  whom  we  ascribe  it , 
yet  Etill  we  have,  in  Saint  Luke’s  Gospel,  a  gjven  by  a  writer 

immediately  connected  with  the  transaction,  with  the  witnesses  oi 
r  with  thl  persons  engaged  ik  it,  and  composed  from  materials 
vvhich  that  person,  thus  situated,  deemed  to  be  safe  sources  ®  ’ 
lie-ence  •  in  other  words,  whatever  supposition  be  made  concermng 
ir<u  allTe  oto  Gospel.,  if  Saint  Luke’s  Gospel  to  genmne,  we 
have  in  it  a  credible  evidence  of  the  point  which  we  maintain. 

The  Gospel  according  to  Saint  John  appears  to  be,  and  is  on  all 
hands  allowed  to  be,  an  independent  testimony,  strictly  and  proper  y 
so  called.  Notwithstanding,  therefore,  any  connexion, 
connexion,  between  some  of  the  Gospels,  I  again  ’■®P®f\^J^’J* 
foie  said,  that  if  any  one  of  the  four  be  genuine,  we  have,  m  that 
on^  strong  reason,  from  the  character  and  situation  of  the  writer,  to 
believe  that  we  possess  the  accounts  which  the  original  emissarie 

*^^Secondly?  In^^eating  of  the  written  evidences  of  Christianity 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  63 

next  to  their  separate,  we  are  to  consider  their  aggregate  authority. 
Now,  there  is  in  the  evangelic  history  a  cumulation  of  testimony 
w'hich  belongs  hardly  to  any  other  history,  but  which  our  habitual 
mode  of  reading  the  Scriptures  sometimes  causes  us  to  overlook. 
When  a  passage,  in  any  wise  relating  to  the  history  of  Christ,  is  read 
to  us  out  of  the  epistle  of  Clemens  Romanus,  the  epistle  of  Ignatius, 
of  Polycarp,  or  from  any  other  writing  of  that  age,  we  are  immedi¬ 
ately  sensible  of  the  confirmation  which  it  affords  to  the  Scripture 
account.  Here  is  a  new  witness.  Now,  if  we  had  been  accus¬ 
tomed  to  read  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  alone,  and  had  known  that 
of  Luke  only  as  the  generality  of  Christians  know  the  writings  of 
the  apostolic  fathers,  that  is,  had  known  that  such  a  writing  was  ex¬ 
tant  and  acknowledged ;  when  we  came,  for  the  first  time,  to  look 
into  wdvit  it  contained,  and  found  many  of  the  facts  which  Matthew' 
recorded,  recorded  also  there,  many  other  facts  of  a  similar  nature 
added,  and  throughout  the  w'hole  work  the  same  general  series  of 
transactions  stated,  and  the  same  general  character  of  the  person 
who  w'as  the  subject  of  the  history  preserved,  I  apprehend  that  we 
should  feel  our  minds  strongly  impressed  by  this  discovery  of  fresh 
evidence.  We  should  feel  a  renewal  of  the  same  sentiment  in  first 
reading  the  Gospel  of  Saint  John.  That  of  Saint  Mark  perhaps 
would  strike  us  as  an  abridgment  of  the  history  with  which  we  were 
already  acquainted ;  but  we  should  naturally  reflect,  that  if  that 
history  was  abridged  by  such  a  person  as  Mark,  or  by  any  person  of 
so  early  an  age,  it  afforded  one  of  the  highest  possible  attestations  to 
the  value  of  the  work.  This  successive  disclosure  of  proof  would 
leave  us  assured,  that  there  must  have  been  at  least  some  reality  in 
a  story  which  not  one,  but  many,  had  taken  in  hand  to  commit  to 
writing.  The  very  existence  of  four  separate  histories  would  satisfy 
us  that  the  subject  had  a  foundation ;  and  when,  amidst  the  variety 
which  the  different  information  of  the  different  writers  had  supplied 
to  their  accounts,  or  which  their  different  choice  and  judgment  in 
selecting  their  materials  had  produced;  we  observed  many  facts  to 
stand  the  same  in  all ;  of  these  facts,  at  least,  we  should  conclude, 
that  they  were  fixed  in  their  credit  and  publicity.  If,  after  this,  w'e 
should  come  to  the  knowledge  of  a  distinct  history,  and  that  also 
of  the  same  age  wdth  the  rest,  taking  up  the  subject  where  the 
others  had  left  it,  and  carrying  on  a  narrative  of  the  effects  produced 
in  the  world  by  the  extraordinary  causes  of  which  we  had  already 
been  informed,  and  which  effects  subsist  at  this  day,  we  should  think 
the  reality  of  the  original  story  in  no  little  degree  established  by  this 
supplement.  If  subsequent  inquiries  should  bring  to  our  knowledge, 
one  after  another,  letters  written  by  some  of  the  principal  agents  in 
the  business,  upon  the  business,  and  during  the  time  of  their  ac¬ 
tivity  and  concern  in  it,  assuming  all  along  and  recognizing  the 
original  story,  agitating  the  questions  that  arose  out  of  it,  pressing 
the  obligations  which  resulted  from  it,  giving  advice  and  directions 
to  those  who  acted  upon  it ;  I  conceive  that  we  should  find,  in  every 
one  of  these,  a  still  farther  support  to  the  conclusion  we  had  formed. 
A.t  present,  the  weight  of  this  successive  confirmation  is,  in  a  great 


64  Paleifs  Vieio  of  the 

measure  unperceived  by  us.  The  evidence  does  riot  appear  to  us 
what  it  is  •  for,  being  from  our  infancy  accustomed  to  regard  the 

New  Testament  as  one  book,  we  see  in  it  ^^o^ 

whole  occurs  to  us  as  a  single  evidence ;  and  its  different  parts  not 

as  distinct  attestations,  but  as  different 

Yet  in  this  conception  of  the  subject,  we  are  ‘ 

for  the  very  discrepancies  among  the  several  documents  which  form 
our  volume,  prove,  if  all  other  proof  were  j 

original  composition  they  were  separate,  and  most  of  them  inUe 

^Tf  we  dSposeTu;  ideas  in  a  different  order,  the  matter  stands 
thus :  Whilst  the  transaction  was  recent,  and  the  original  witnesse 
were  at  hand  to  relate  it;  and  whilst  the  apostles  were  busied  m 
preaching  and  travelling,  in  collecting  disciples,  in  forming  and 
Regulating  societies  of  converts,  in  supporting  themselves  against 
opposition ;  whilst  they  exercised  their  ministry  under  the  harassmgs 
of  frequent  persecution,  and  in  a  state  of  almost 

fs  notVbable  that,  in  this  engaged,  anxious,  and  msel  led 

tion  of  life,  they  would  think  immediately  of  writing  histones  for 
the  information^of  the  public  or  of  posterity.^  But  it  P\"|f ' 

ble  that  emergencies  might  draw  from  some  of  them 

ters  upon  the  subject  of  their  mission,  to  converts  TthprSiaht  ad- 
converts,  with  which  they  were  connected ;  or  that  they  might  ad 

dress  written  discourses  and  exhortations  to  the 
stitution  at  large,  which  would  be  received  and  read  with  a  respect 
t!  the  character  of  the  writer.  Account  m  the  mea 
time  would  get  abroad  of  the  extraordinary  things  that  had  been 
pSsinT  writin  with  different  degrees  of  information  and  correct¬ 
ness.  The  extension  of  the  Christian  society,  which  could  no 
be  instructed  by  a  personal  intercourse  with  the  apostles,  and  the 
possible  circulation  of  imperfect  or  erroneous 
Roon  teach  some  amongst  them  the  expediency 
authentic  memoirs  of  the  life  and  doctrine  of  ^^'^r  Masten  When 
accounts  appeared  authorized  by  the  name,  and  credit,  and  situ 
tion  of  the  writers,  recommended  or  recognized  by  the  aposff  es  and 
firsi’  preachers  of  the  religion,  or  found  to  couicide  with  what  the 
apostles  and  first  preachers  of  the  religion  had  taught,  othei  ac 
cLnts  would  fall  mto  disuse  and  neglect ;  wMst 
ing  their  reputation  (as,  if  genuine  and  well  funded,  they  wou 

do)  under  the  test  of  time, 

pected  to  make  their  way  into  the  hands  of  Christians  of  all  coun 

^"^^This  seems  the  natural  progress  of  the  business ; 

the  records  in  our  possession,  and  the  evidence  concerning  them, 

♦  Thi<;  ihou<Tht  occurred  to  Eusebius:  ‘Nor  were  the  apostles  of 
Christ  greatly  concerned  about  the  writing  of  books,  being 
Se  elcellenministry,  which  is  above  all  "a^cit^ 

1.  iii.  c.  24.— The  same  consideration  accounts  also  foi  the  pauc  y 
Christian  writings  in  the  first  century  of  its  era. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  65 

correspond.  We  have  remaimng,  m  the  first  place,  many  letters  of 
the  kind  above  described,  which  have  been  preserved  with  a  care 
and  fidelity  answering  to  the  respect  with  which  we  may  suppose 
such  letters  would  be  received.  But  as  these  letters  were  not 
written  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion,  in  the  sense  in 
which  we  regard  that  question;  nor  to  convey  information  of  facts, 
of  which  those  to  whom  the  letters  were  written  had  been  pre¬ 
viously  informed ;  we  are  not  to  look  in  them  for  any  thing  more 
than  incidental  allusions  to  the  Christian  history.  We  are  able, 
however,  to  gather  from  these  documents  various  particular  attesta¬ 
tions  which  have  been  already  enumerated ;  and  this  is  a  species 
of  written  evidence,  as  far  as  it  goes,  in  the  highest  degree  satisfac¬ 
tory  ,  and  in  point  of  time  perhaps  the  first.  But  for  our  more  cir¬ 
cumstantial  information,  w^e  have,  in  the  next  place,  five  direct  his¬ 
tories,  bearing  the  names  of  persons  acquainted,  by  their  situation, 
with  the  truth  of  what  they  relate,  and  three  of  them  purporting,  in 
the  very  body  of  the  narrative,  to  be  WTitten  by  such  persons ;  of 
which  books  we  know,  that  some  were  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
w-ere  contemporaries  of  the  apostles,  and  that,  in  the  age  imme¬ 
diately  posterior  to  that,  they  were  in  the  hands,  we  may  say,  of 
every  one,  and  received  by  Christians  with  so  much  respect  and 
deference,  as  to  be  constantly  quoted  and  referred  to  by  them,  with¬ 
out  any  doubt  of  the  truth  of  their  accounts.  They  were  treated 
as  such  histories,  proceeding  from  such  authorities,  might  expect  to 
be  treated.  In  the  preface  to  one  of  our  histories,  we  have  intima¬ 
tion  left  us  of  the  existence  of  some  ancient  accounts  which  are 
now  lost.  There  is  nothing  in  this  circumstance  that  can  surprise 
us.  It  was  to  be  expected,  from  the  magnitude  and  novelty  of  the 
occasion,  that  such  accounts  would  swarm.  When  better  accounts 
came  forth,  these  died  aw’ay.  Our  present  histories  superseded 
others.  They  soon  acquired  a  character  and  established  a  reputa¬ 
tion  which  does  not  appear  to  have  belonged  to  any  other :  that,  at 
least,  can  be  proved  concerning  them,  which  cannot  be  proved  con¬ 
cerning  any  other. 

But  to  return  to  the  point  which  led  to  these  reflections.  By  con¬ 
sidering  our  records  in  either  of  the  two  views  in  which  we  have 
represented  them,  we  shall  perceive  that  we  possess  a  collection  of 
•proofs,  and  not  a  naked  or  solitary  testimony  ;  and  that  the  written 
evidence  is  of  such  a  kind,  and  comes  to  us  in  such  a  state,  as  the 
natural  order  and  progress  of  things,  in  the  infancy  of  the  institu¬ 
tion,  might  be  expected  to  produce. 

Thirdly :  The  genuineness  of  the  historical  books  of  the  New 
Testament  is  undoubtedly  a  point  of  importance,  because  the 
strength  of  their  evidence  is  augmented  by  our  knowledge  of  the 
situation  of  their  authors,  their  relation  to  the  subject,  and  the  part 
which  they  sustained  in  the  transaction ;  and  the  testimonies  which 
we  are  able  to  produce,  compose  a  firm  ground  of  persuasion,  that 
the  Gospels  were  written  by  the  persons  whose  names  they  bear. 
Nevertheless,  I  must  be  allowed  to  state,  that  to  the  argument  which 
I  am  endeavoring  to  maintain,  this  point  is  not  essential ;  I  mean,  so 

F  2 


66 


Foley's  View  of  the 

essential  as  that  the  fate  of  the  argument  depends  upon  it. 
question  before  us  is,  whether  the  Gospels  exhibit  the  story  which 
the  apostles  and  first  emissaries  of  the  religion  published,  and  Jor 
which  they  acted  and  suffered  in  the  manner  in  which,  for  some 
miraculous  story  or  other,  they  did  act  and  suffer.  INow  let  us  sup¬ 
pose  that  we  possessed  no  other  information  concerning  these  boohs 
than  that  they  were  written  by  early  disciples  of  Christmnity ;  that 
they  were  known  and  read  during  the  time,  or  near  the  time,  of 
the  original  apostles  of  the  religion;  that  by  Christians  whom  the 
apostles  instructed,  by  societies  of  Christians  which  the  apostles 
founded,  these  books  were  received  (by  which  term  ‘receiv^,  1 
mean  that  they  were  believed  to  contain  authentic  accounts  of  the 
transactions  upon  which  the  religion  rested,  and  accounts  which 
were  accordingly  used,  repeated,  and  relied  upon),  this  recejkion 
would  be  a  valid  proof  that  these  books,  whoever  were  the  authors 
of  them,  must  have  accorded  with  what  the  apostles  taught.  A 
reception'by  the  first  race  of  Christians,  is  evidence  that  they  agreed 
with  what  the  first  teachers  of  the  religion  delivered.  In  particular, 
if  they  had  not  agreed  with  what  the  apostles  themselves  preached, 
how  could  they  have  gained  credit  in  churches  and  societies  which 

the  apostles  established  ?  ,  * 

Now  the  fact  of  the  early  existence,  and  not  only  of  them  exist¬ 
ence  but  their  reputation,  is  made  out  by  some  ancient  testimonies 
which  do  not  happen  to  specify  the  names  of  the  writers :  add  to 
which,  w'hat  hath  been  already  hinted,  that  tw'O  out  of  the 
Gospels  contain  averments  in  the  body  of  the  history,  which,  though 
they  do  not  disclose  the  names,  fix  the  time  and  situation  of  the 
authors,  viz.  that  one  was  written  by  an  eye-witness  of  the  suffer¬ 
ings  of  Christ,  the  other  by  a  contemporary  of  the  apostles.  In  the 
Gospel  of  St.  John,  (xix.  35.)  after  describing  the  crucifixion,  with 
the  particular  circumstance  of  piercing  Christ’s  side  with  a  spear, 
the  historian  adds,  as  for  himself,  ‘  and  he  that  saw  it  bare  record, 
and  his  record  is  true,  and  he  knoweth  that  he  saith  true,  that  ye 
might  believe.’  Again,  fxxi.  24.)  after  relating  a  conversation  whicn 
passed  between  Peter  and  ‘  the  disciple,’  as  it  is  there  expre^ed, 
‘  w'hom  Jesus  loved,’  it  is  added,  ‘  this  is  the  disciple  which  testifieth 
of  these  things,  and  wrote  these  things.’  This  testimony,  let  it  be 
remarked,  is  not  less  worthy  of  regard,  because  it  is,  in  one  view, 
imperfect.  The  name  is  not  mentioned;  which,  if  a  fraudulent 
purpose  had  been  intended,  would  have  been  done.  The  third  of 
our  present  Gospels  purports  to  have  been  written  by  the  person 
who  wrote  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ;  in  which  latter  history,  or 
rather  latter  part  of  the  same  history,  the  author,  by  using  in  various 
places  the  first  personal  plural,  declares  himself  to  have  been  a 
contcmporaty  of  all,  and  a  companion  of  one,  of  the  original 
preachers  of  the  religion. 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 


67 


CHAP.  IX. 

Of  the  Authenticity  of  the  Historical  Scriptures.,  in  Eleven  Sections. 

Not  forgetting,  therefore,  what  credit  is  due  to  the  evangelical 
history,  supposing  even  any  one  of  the  four  Gospels  to  be  genuine ; 
what  credit  is  due  to  the  Gospels,  even  supposing  nothing  to  be 
known  concerning  them  but  that  they  w^ere  written  by  early  dis¬ 
ciples  of  the  religion,  and  received  wnth  deference  by  early  Chris¬ 
tian  churches ;  more  especially  not  forgetting  what  credit  is  due  to 
the  New  Testament  in  its  capacity  of  cumulative  evidence ;  w-e  now 
j^oceed  to  state  the  proper  and  distinct  proofs,  which  show  not  only 
the  general  value  of  these  records,  but  their  specific  authority,  and 
the  high  probability  there  is  that  they  actually  came  from  the  per¬ 
sons  whose  names  they  bear. 

There  are,  however,  a  few  preliminary  reflections,  by  which  W'e 
may  draw  up  wdth  more  regularity  to  the  propositions  upon  wfoich 
the  close  and  particular  discussion  of  the  subject  depends.  Of  which 
nature  are  the  following: 

I.  We  are  able  to  produce  a  great  number  of  ancient  manuscripts, 
found  in  many  different  countries,  and  in  countries  widely  distant 
from  each  other,  all  of  them  anterior  to  the  art  of  printing,  som® 
certainly  seven  or  eight  hundred  years  old,  and  some  which  have 
been  preserved  probably  above  a  thousand  years.*  We  have  also 
many  ancient  versions  of  these  books,  and  some  of  them  into  lan¬ 
guages  which  are  not  at  present,  nor  for  many  ages  have  been, 
spoken  in  any  part  of  the  world.  The  existence  of  these  manuscripts 
and  versions  proves  that  the  Scriptures  were  not  the  production  of 
any  modern  contrivance.  It  does  away  also  the  uncertainty  which 
hangs  over  such  publications  as  the  works,  real  or  pretended,  of 
Ossian  and  Rowley,  in  which  the  editors  are  challenged  to  produce 
their  manuscripts,  and  to  show  where  they  obtained  their  copies. 
The  number  of  manuscripts,  far  exceeding  those  of  any  other  book, 
and  their  wide  dispersion,  afford  an  argument,  in  some  measure,  to 
the  senses,  that  the  Scriptures  anciently,  in  like  manner  as  at  this 
day,  were  more  read  and  sought  after  than  any  other  books,  and 
that  also  in  many  different  countries.  The  greatest  part  of  spurious 
Christian  writings  are  utterly  lost,  the  rest  preserved  by  some  single 
manuscript.  There  is  weight  also  in  Dr.  Bentley’s  observation,  that 
the  New  Testament  has  suffered  less  injury  by  the  errors  of  tran¬ 
scribers,  than  the  works  of  any  profane  author  of  the  same  size  and 
antiquity ;  that  is,  there  never  was  any  writing,  in  the  preservation 
and  purity  of  which  the  world  was  so  interested  or  so  careful. 

II.  An  argument  of  great  w'eight  with  those  who  are  judges  of 
the  proofs  upon  wdiich  it  is  founded,  and  capable,  through  their  tes- 


*  The  Alexandrian  Manuscript,  now  in  the  British  Museum,  was  writ 
ten  probably  in  the  fourtli  or  fifth  century. 


03  Paletfs  View  of  the 

sons  oVS°a|e?nd  ta  Lb'situation.  and  ™  °‘^'”cKan 

that  is  with  Hebraic  and  Syriac  idioms,  such  as  would  j 

Sng^f'for  S  shoSld  forTe  Sem?^Tp  ChrSrSTrs  were 

few  who^had  a  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew,  as  Justin  Mai 

Hebrew,  used  chiefly,  perhaps  almost  entirely,  the  Gospe^  of  S 
Matthew,  and  therefore  cannot  he  suspected  of 
the  sacred  writings.  The  argument,  at  any  rate,  proves  the  antiquity 
of  thefe  S;  fhat  they  bllonged  to  the  age  of  the  apostles ;  that 

they  could  be  composed  indeed  in  no  other.  r.v^pUooi^g?  jg 

III.  Why  should  we  question  the  genuineness  of  these  books  .1 

LS  r.  iJfshTSSxr  fsX^Ta^riCgh 

namel'of  MSewS’jSin^  noSfbS  ordinary  history^ 

nhim  nr  Philo  ■  that  is,  there  would  have  been  no  doubt  at  all.  Now 
Ft^ught  10  be’ considered  that  this  reasoin  '‘““L^cts 

the  credit  which  is  given  to  a  writer  ®  ® 

ihe  ouestion  of  genuineness  very  indirectly.  The  works  oi  ceu 
exhibit  many  wonderful  relations :  but  who,  for  that  reason,  ^oubte 
That  tiierwerr^itten  by  Bede?  The  same  of  a  multitude  of  other 
authors^  To  which  may  be  added,  that  we  ask  no  more  f 
books  than  w'hat  we  allow  to  other  books  in  some  sort  similar 
niirc!  •  we  do  not  deny  the  genuineness  of  the  Koran ;  we  adniit  fliat 
the  history  of  Apollomus  Tyameus,  purporting  to  be  written  by  P  - 
ln'?tratus  was  really  written  by  Philostiatus-  ^ 

are  taken. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  69 

heard  but  of  one  attempt  of  this  sort,  deserving  of  the  smallest 
notice,  that  in  a  piece  of  a  very  few  lines,  and  so  far  from  succeed¬ 
ing,  I  mean,  from  obtaining  acceptance  and  reputation,  or  an  accept¬ 
ance  and  reputation  in  any  wise  similar  to  that  which  can  be  proved 
to  have  attended  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  that  it  is  not  so 
much  as  mentioned  by  any  writer  of  the  first  three  centuries.  The 
learned  reader  need  not  be  informed  that  I  mean  the  epistle  of 
Christ  to  Abgarus,  king  of  Edessa,  found  at  present  in  the  w'ork  of 
Eusebius,*  as  a  piece  acknowledged  by  him,  though  not  without 
considerable  doubt  whether  the  whole  passage  be  not  an  interpola¬ 
tion,  as  it  is  most  certain,  that,  after  the  publication  of  Eusebius’s 
work,  this  epistle  was  universally  rejected.t 

V.  If  the  ascription  of  the  Gospels  to  their  respective  authors  had 
been  arbitrary  or  conjectural,  they  w'ould  have  been  ascribed  to 
more  eminent  men.  This  observation  holds  concerning  the  first 
three  Gospels,  the  reputed  authors  of  which  were  enabled,  by  their 
situation,  to  obtain  true  intelligence,  and  were  likely  to  deliver  an 
honest  account  of  what  they  knew,  but  were  persons  not  distin¬ 
guished  in  the  history  by  extraordinary  marks  of  notice  or  com¬ 
mendation.  Of  the  apostles,  I  hardly  know  any  one  of  whom  less 
is  said  than  Matthew,  or  of  whom  the  little  that  is  said,  is  less  cal¬ 
culated  to  magnify  his  character.  Of  Mark,  nothing  is  said  in  the 
Gospels;  and  what  is  said  of  any  person  of  that  name  in  the  Acts, 
and  in  the  Epistles,  in  no  part  bestows  praise  or  eminence  upon  him. 
The  name  of  Luke  is  mentioned  only  in  St.  Paul’s  Epistle,!  and 
\eiy  transiently.  The  judgment,  therefore,  which  assigned  these 
WTitings  to  these  authors  proceeded,  it  may  be  presumed,  upon 
proper  knowledge  and  evidence,  and  not  upon  a  voluntary  choice 
of  names. 

VI.  Christian  writers  and  Christian  churches  appear  to  have  soon 
arrived  at  a,  very  general  agreement  upon  the  subject,  and  tha, 
without  the  interposition  of  any  public  authority.  When  the  diver- 

opinion,  which  prevailed,  and  prevails  among  Christians  in 
other  points,  is  considered,  their  concurrence  in  the  canon  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  is  remarkable,  and  of  great  weight,  especially  as  it  seems  to 
have  been  the  result  of  private  and  free  inquiry.  We  have  no 
Imowledge  of  any  interference  of  authority  in  the  question,  before 
the  council  of  Laodicea  in  the  year  363.  Probably  the  decree  of 


*  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  i.  c.  15. 

t  Augustin,  A.  D.  895,  (De  Consens.  Evang.  c.  34.)  had  heard  that  the 
ragans  pretended  to  be  possessed  of  an  epistle  from  Christ  to  Peter  and 
Paul ;  but  he  had  never  seen  it,  and  appears  to  doubt  of  the  existence  of 
any  such  piece,  either  genuine  or  spurious.  No  other  ancient  tvriter 
mentions  it.  He  also,  and  he  alone,  notices,  and  that  in  order  to  condemn 
It,  an  epistle  ascribed  to  Christ  by  the  Manichees,  A.  D.  270,  and  a  short 
hymn  attributed  to  him  by  the  Priscillianists,  A.  D.  378.  (cont.  Faust.  Man. 
lib.  xxviii.  c.  4.)  The  lateness  of  the  writer  who  notices  these  things,  the 
manner  in  which  he  notices  them,  and,  above  all,  the  silence  of  every 
preceding  wi  iter,  render  them  unworthy  of  consideration. 

I  Col.  iv.  14.  2  Tim.  iv.  11.  Philem.  24. 


<^0  Faley^s  View  of  the 

this  council  rather  declared  than  regulated  the  public  judgment,  or, 
more  properly  speaking,  the  judgment  of  some  ’ 

the  council  itself  consisting  of  no  more  than  thirty  or  lorty  bishop 
of  Lydia  and  the  adjoining  countries.*  Nor  does 
to  have  extended  farther;  for  we  find  numerous  Christian  writers, 
thirarntdiscussing  the  question,  ‘Whf  t?*  wej  en  uled 
to  be  received  as  Scripture,’  with  great  freedom,  upon  proper 
grounds  of  evidence,  and  without  any  reference  to  the  decision  at 

Laodicea. 

These  considerations  are  not  to  be  neglected: 
ment  concerning  the  genuineness  of  ancient  writings,  the  substance, 

undoubtedly,  and  strength,  is  ancient  ^^imony.  Jot-iil  •  for 

This  testimony  it  is  necessary  to  exhibit  somewhat  in  d^ail .  for 
when  Christian  advocates  merely  tell  us  that  we  have  the  same 
reason  for  believing  the  Gospels  to  be  written  by  the 
whose  names  they  bear,  as  we  have  for  believing 
lies  to  be  Caesar’s,  the  iEneid  Virgil  s,  or  the  Orations  Cicero  j  they 
content  themselves  with  an  imperfect  ^'^presentation.  They  sta^^^^ 
nothine  more  than  what  is  true,  but  they  do  not  state  the  truth  cor 
rectly5  In  the  number,  variety,  and  early  date  of  our  testimonies, 
we  ^r  exceed  all  other  ancient  books.  For  one,  which  the  most 
TelebratS  work  of  the  most  celebrated  Greek  or  Roman  writer  can 
Se^e  we  moduce  many.  But  then  it  is  more  requisite  in  our  books, 
than  in  theus,  to  separate  and  distinguish  them  from  spurious  com¬ 
petitors.  The  result,  I  am  convinced,  will  be  satisfactory  to  every 
fair  inquirer:  but  this  circumstance  renders  an 

In  a  work,  however,  like  the  present,  there  is  a  difficulty  m  find¬ 
ing  a  E  for  evidence  of  this  kind,  To  pursue  the  Retails  of 
proofs  throughout,  would  be  to  transcribe  a  great  part  of  Dr.  Lard- 

SerWevenlctavo  volumes:  to  leave  the  argument  without  proo| 

is  to  leave  it  without  effect;  for  the  persuasion  produced  by  tins 
species  of  evidence  depends  upon  a  view  and  mtroduction  of  the 

particulars  which  compose  it.  hpfnre 

^  The  method  which  I  propose  to  myself  i^  first,  to  Pta(^®  , 

the  reader  in  one  view,  the  propositions  which  comprise  the  seveia.1 
heads  of  our  testimony,  and  afterward  to  repeat  the 
tions  in  so  many  distinct  sections,  with  the  necessary  authorities 

^^The^folfowing,  then,  are  the  allegations  upon  the  subject,  which 

are  canable  of  being  established  by  proof: 

I.  That  the  historical  books  of  the  New  Testament,  meaning 
thereby  the  four  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  are  quoted, 
or  alluded  to,  by  a  series  of  Christian  writers,  beginning  with  those 
x4o  were  confomporary  with  the  apostles,  or  who  immediately 


t  Tlie  reader,  when  he  has  the  propositions  before  him,  will 
the  argument,  if  he  should  omit  the  sections,  proceeds  connectedly  from 

this  point. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  71 

followed  them,  and  proceeding  in  close  and  regular  succession  from 
their  time  to  the  present. 

II.  That  when  they  are  quoted,  or  alluded  to,  they  are  quoted  or 
alluded  to  with  peculiar  respect,  as  books  sui  generis ;  as  possessing 
^  a.uthority  which  belonged  to  no  other  books,  and  as  conclusive 
in  all  questions  and  controversies  amongst  Christians. 

III.  That  they  were,  in  very  early  times,  collected  into  a  distinct 
volume. 

IV.  That  they  were  distinguished  by  appropriate  names  and  titles 
01  respect. 

V.  That  they  were  publicly  read  and  expounded  in  the  religious 
assemblies  of  the  early  Christians. 

VI.  That  commentaries  were  written  upon  them,  harmonies 
formed  out  of  them,  different  copies  carefully  collated,  and  versions 
of  them  made  into  different  languages. 

\TI.  That  they  were  received  by  Christians  .of  different  sects,  by 
many  heretics  as  well  as  Catholics,  and  usually  appealed  to  by  both 
sides  in  the  controversies  which  arose  in  those  days. 

\1II.  That  the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  thirteen 
Epistles  of  Saint  Paul,  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  and  the  first  of  Peter 
\yere  received,  without  doubt,  by  those  who  doubted  concerning 
the  other  books  which  are  included  in  our  present  canon. 

the  Gospels  were  attacked  by  the  early  adversaries  of 
Christianity,  as  books  containing  the  accounts  upon  which  the  reli¬ 
gion  was  founded. 

•  \  formal  catalogues  of  authentic  Scriptures  were  published  • 
in  all  which  our  present  sacred  histories  were  included.  ^ 

M.  That  these  propositions  cannot  be  affirmed  of  any  other  books 
clairmng  to  be  books  of  Scripture ;  by  which  are  meant  those  books 
which  are  commonly  called  apocryphal  books  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment 


SECT.  I. 

Ike  historical  books  of  the  New  Testament,  meaning  thereby  the  four 
erospelsaTm  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  are  quoted,  or  alluded  to  by  a 
series  of  fhristian  writers,  beginning  with  those  who  were  contem¬ 
porary  with  the  apostles,  or  who  immediately  followed  them,  and  pro¬ 
ceeding  in  close  and  regular  succession  frrni  their  time  to  the  present. 

The  medium  of  proof  stated  in  this  proposition  is,  of  all  others 
the  most  unquestionable,  the  least  liable  to  any  practices  of  fraud 
and  IS  not  diminished  by  the  lapse  of  ages.  Bishop  Burnet,  in  the 
History  of  his  Own  Times,  inserts  various  extracts  from  lord  Claren¬ 
don  s  History.  One  such  insertion  is  a  proof,  that  lord  Clarendon’s 
History  was  extant  at  the  time  when  bishop  Burnet  wrote,  that  it 
nan  been  read  by  bishop  Burnet,  that  it  was  received  by  bishop 
iiurnet  as  a  work  of  lord  Clarendon,  and  also  regarded  by  him  as 
^  auttientic  account  of  the  transactions  which  it  relates;  and  it  will 
oe  a  proof  of  these  points  a  thousand  years  hence,  or  as  long  as  the 


72 


Paleyh  View  of  the 


hooks  exist.  Quintilian  having  quoted  as  Cicero's*  that  well-known 
trait  of  dissembled  vanity ; —  .  . 

‘  Si  ouid  est  in  me  ingenii,  J  udices,  quod  seiitio  quam  sit  exigu  um ; 

the  quotation  would  be  strong  evidence,  were  there  any  that 

the  omlion,  which  opens  with  this  address  actually  came  from  Cice¬ 
ro’s  pen.  These  instances,  how^ever  simple,  may  „.,ture 

to  a  reader,  who  is  little  accustomed  to  such  researches,  the  na  u 

“TheH“tilnies"S  have  to  bring  forward  under  this  pro- 

^’^r^Thtfr'e  is^extant  an  epistle  ascribed  to  Bamabas.t  the  companior 
of  Paul  It  irouoted  as  the  epistle  of  Barnabas,  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria  A  D^Sctv ;  by  Ongen.  A.  D.  coxxx.  It  is  mentioned  by 
fSuS  i  D.  occxv,  and  by  Jerome,  a.  d.  cccxcii,  as  an  ancien 
wS  in  their  time,  bearing  the  name  of  Barnabas,  and  as  weU 
known  and  read  amongst  Christians,  though  not  accounted  a  par 
of  Scripture  It  purports  to  have  been  written  soon  after  the  de- 
?ruS  of  JerusLm,  during  the  calamities  »hmh  fol  owed  ha 
disaster ;  and  it  bears  the  character  of  the  age  to  which  it  professe  . 

“Shif  epistle  appears  the  following  remarkable  c-' Let 

ns  therefore,  beware  lest  it  come  upon  us,  as  it  is  .. 

Le  manv  caile^few  chosen.’  From  the  expression,  ‘as  it  is  vyrit- 
ten  ’  we^infer  with  certainty,  that,  at  the  time  when  the  author 
this  enistle  lived,  there  was  a  book  extant,  well  known  to  Chris- 

?Sy  ^elflej  few  cWm’^ 

“IfotL^Corno”  kn“wrlSra^^^ 

made  upon  the  terms  of  the  quotation.  The  writer  of  ^ 
was  a  Jew.  The  phrase  ‘  it  is  written,’  was  the  very  foim  in 
the  Jews  quoted  their  Scriptures.  It  is  not  ^  ^ 

he  would  have  used  this  phrase,  and  without  qualification,  »  y 
books  but  what  had  acquired  a  kind  of  scriptural  authority.  If  the 
naiage  remSed  in  this  ancient  writing  had  been  found  in  one  of 
St  Paul’s  Epistles,  it  would  have  been  esteemed  by  eveiy  one 
fkiartestimonrto  St  Matthew’s  Gospel.  It  ought,  therefore,  to 
be  remembered,\at  the  writing  in  which  it  found  was  probably 

others  in  which  the  sentiment  is  the  same  vyith  what  we  meet  wit 
in  St  Matthew’s  Gospel,  and  two  or  three  in  which  we  reco  ni  i 
the  same  words.  In  particular,  the  author  of  the  epistle  repeats  the 


*  diiint.  lib.  xi.  c.  i.  ,  •  „  oo  jfvo  Thp  rpailer  will  observe 

merit  and  selection. 
t  Matt.  XX.  16.  xxii.  14. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  73 

precef  t,  ‘  Give  to  every  one  that  asketh  thee  and  saith  that 
Christ  chose  as  his  apostles,  who  were  to  preach  the  Gospel,  men 
who  were  great  sinners,  that  he  might  show  that  he  came  ‘  not  to 
call  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  repentance.’t 

II.  We  are  in  possession  of  an  epistle  written  by  Clement,  bishop 
of  Rome,!  whom  ancient  writers,  without  any  doubt  or  scruple,  as¬ 
sert  to  have  been  the  Clement  whom  Saint  Paul  mentions,  Phil, 
iv.  3. ;  ‘  with'  Clement  also,  and  other  my  fellow-laborers,  whose 
names  are  in  the  book  of  life.’  This  epistle  is  spoken  of  by  the 
ancients  as  an  epistle  acknowledged  by  all;  and,  as  Irenmus  well 
represents  its  value,  ‘  written  by  Clement,  who  had  seen  the  blesse 
apostles,  and  conversed  with  them;  who  had  the  preaching  of  the 
apostles  still  sounding  in  his  ears,  and  their  traditions  before  his 
eyes.’  It  is  addressed  to  the  church  of  Corinth  ;  and  what  alone 
may  seem  almost  decisive  of  its  authenticity,  Dionysius,  bishop  of 
Corinth,  about  the  year  170,  i.  e.  about  eighty  or  ninety  years  after 
the  epistle  was  written,  bears  witness,  ‘  that  it  had  been  wont  to  be 
read  in  that  church  from  ancient  times.’ 

This  epistle  affords,  amongst  others,  the  following  valuable  pas¬ 
sages: — ‘Especially  remembering  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
which  he  spake,  teaching  gentleness  and  long-suffering:  for  thus 
he  said  :§  “  Be  ye  merciful,  that  ye  may  obtain  mercy ;  forgive,  that 
it  may  be  forgiven  unto  you ;  as  you  do,  so  shall  it  be  done  unto 
you ;  as  you  give,  so  shall  it  be  given  unto  you ;  as  ye  judge,  so 
shall  ye  be  judged;  as  ye  show  kindness,  so  shall  kindness  be 
shown  unto  you ;  with  what  measure  ye  mete,  wi‘h  the  same  shall 
it  be  measured  to  you.”  By  this  command,  and  by  these  rules,  let 
us  establish  ourselves,  that  ye  may  always  walk  obediently  to  his 
holy  words.’ 

Again ;  ‘  Remember  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  for  he  said, 
“■yVoe  to  that  man  by  whom  offences  come  ;  it  were  better  for  him 
that  he  had  not  been  born,  than  that  he  should  offend  one  of  my 
elect ;  it  were  better  for  him  that  a  millstone  should  be  tied  about 
his  neck,  and  that  he  should  be  drowned  in  the  sea,  than  that  he 
should  offend  one  of  my  little  ones.”  ’|| 

In  both  these  passages,  wm  perceive  the  high  respect  paid  to  the 
words  of  Christ  as  recorded  by  the  evangelists ;  ‘  Remember  the 


*  Matt.  V.  42.  t  Matt.  ix.  13.  |  Lardner,  Cred.  vol.  i.  p.  62,  &c. 

§  ‘  Blessed  are  the  merciful,  for  they  shall  obtain  mercy.’  Matt.  v.  7. 
—‘Forgive,  and  ye  shall  be  forgiven  ;  give,  and  it  shall  be  given  unto 
you.’  Liike  vi.  37,  38. — ‘  Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged;  for  with  what 
judgment  ye  judge,  ye  shall  be  judged  ;  and  with  what  measure  ye  mete. 
It  shall  be  measured  to  you  again.’  Matt.  vii.  1,  2. 

|i  Matt  xviii.  6.  ‘But  whoso  shall  offend  one  of  those  little  ones 
which  believe  in  me,  it  were  better  for  him  that  a  millstone  were  hanged 
about  his  neck,  and  that  he  were  cast  into  the  sea.’  The  latter  part  of 
t^he  passage  in  Clement  agrees  more  exactly  with  Luke  xvii.  2:  ‘  It  were 
better  for  him  that  a  millstone  were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  he  cast 
into  the  sea,  than  that  he  should  offend  one  of  these  little  ones.’ 

21  G 


( 

i 


74 


Paley^s  View  of  the 


words  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ;-by  this  coiumand,  and 

ld“«l;Tn  gSpX' 

the  whole  series  of  testimony,  and  especially  to  the  most 

sfnt 

was  written  in  the  name  of  the  church  of  o 

the  cV.urch  of  Corinth,  it  ought  to  be  taken  as  exhibiting  J  eg 
ment  not  only  of  Clement,  who  drew  up  the  \etter,  but  ot  these 
churches  themselves,  at  least  as  to  the  authori  y 

®'™may  be  said,  that,  as  Clement  has  not  used  words  of  quomtion 
it  is  not  certain  that  he  refers  to  any  book 

of  Christ,  which  he  has  put  down,  he  ordinary 

from  the  apostles,  or  might  have  received  ihroi  gh  JJ 

medium  of  oral  tradition.  This  has  been 
inference  can  be  drawn  from  the  absence  of 
proved  by  the  three  following  considerations  •— 

[n  the  ve^y  same  manner,  namely, 

uses  a  nassaee  now  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  wmu 
^Sage^  S  Ae  peeuliariw  of  the  words  which 
from  their  order  it  is  manifest  that  he  must  have  taken  trom  in 
Lk-  TL  smSe  remark  may  Ire  repeated  of  some  very  s.n^ 
sentiments  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 

many  sentences  of  Saint  Paul  s  First  pi  „f  mintation  whic 
standing  in  Clement’s  epistle  without  any  lla 

yet  certainly  are  quotations ;  because  it  app  rdTre  he  mer 

Lint  Paul’s  epistle  before  him  inasmuch  g^^^rp^ke  int 

tions  it  in  terms  too  express  to  leave  us  in  h 

vour  hands  the  epistle  of  the  blessed  apostle  Paul.  1  hirUly ,  m 

this  method  of  adopting  words  ^’^^g't^hod  i 

knowledgment,  was,  as  will  appear  writei-s  Thes 

general  use  amongst  the  most  ancient  Christia.n  writei-s.  t 

SogTes  not  only  fepel  the  objechon,  but  cast  the  pre^ 
the  other  side,  and  afford  a  considerable  ( 

that  the  words  in  question  have  been  borrowed  from  the  places 

®  Brtl'^iUf  ySu^wm^  th-rt  Clement  bad  hea, 

these  words  from  the  apostles  or  first 

resnect  to  the  precise  point  of  our  argument,  viZ.  that  the 

contaS  what  tL  apostles  taught,  this  supposition  may  serve  almc 

^^HL^Near  the  conclusion  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Saint  Pai 


*  Romans  i.  29. 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 


75 


amongst  others,  seigs  the  fohowing  salutation:  ‘  Salute  Asyncrilu-s 
S°the’rr?^"^“^^’  Hermes,  and  the  brethren  wLeh  are 

Of  Hermas,  who  appears  in  this  catalogue  of  Roman  Christians  as 
^ntemporarv  with  Saint  Paul,  a  book  blaring  the  name,  and  R  I 
most  probabk  rightly,  is  still  remaining.  It  is  called  the  Shepherd* 

antiquity  is  incontestable,  from  the  quota- 
ns  of  It  in  Irenaeus,  a.  d.  178^-  Clement  of  Alexandria  a  n  194* 
Tertullian,  a.  d.  200;  Origen,  a.  d.  230.  The  notes  of  time  extam 
in  the  epistle  itself,  agree  with  its  title,  and  with  the  testimonies 

timroTalment  during  the  life- 

are  tacit  allusions  to  Saint  Matthew’s,  Saint  Luke's 
and  Saint  John  s  Gospels ;  that  is  to  say,  there  are  applications  of 
thoughts  and  expressions  found  in  these  Gospels,  with?St  cirine  the 
place  or  writer  from  which  they  were  taken^  llThis  form  aolila? 
m  Hermas  the  confessing  and  denxnng  of  Christ  -f  the  naraWe  of 
the  seed  sown.  the  comparison  o/ Christ’s  diSpleX  ZL  cmI 
dren,  the  saying  ‘He  that  putteth  away  his  wife  and  marrieth  an¬ 
other,  committed  adultery the  singu'lar  expression,  ‘having  “ 

Kvdii  18  ilTrh  Tt  in  probable  allusion  to  Matt. 

Cod  ’  Jnll  ^  Chpt  being  the  ‘  gate,’  or  only  way  of  coming  ‘  to 

representation  of  a  vision,  and  has  by  many  been 
accounted  a  weak  and  fanciful  performance.  I  therefore  olServe 
hat  the  character  of  the  writing  has  little  to  do  with  the  purnose 
for  which  we  adduce  it.  It  is  the  age  in  wMch  it  was  compoS 
that  gives  the  value  to  its  testimony.  eumposea, 

i^SpatuLs,  as  It  IS  testified  by  ancient  Christian  writers,  became 
S  m  nbout  thirty-seven  years  after  Christ’s  ascension  • 

^nd  station,  it  is  probable’ 
hat  he  had  known  and  conversed  with  many  of  the  apostles.  Epis- 
lies  of  Ignatius  are  referred  to  by  Polycarp,  his  contemporary  Pal 
sages  found  m  the  epistles  now  extant  under  his  name!  are^ noted 
by  Iren^us,  a.  d.  178;  by  Origen,  a.  p.  230;  and  the  ’oSon  of 

arellopd^tu’^'®^  given  at  large  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome.  What 
are  called  the  smaller  epistles  of  Ignatius,  are  generally  deemed  to 
be  those  which  were  read  by  Irenajus,  Origen,  and  Eusebius.|| 
nf «  ■  .  It  f  are  various  undoubted  allusions  to  the  Gospels 

dlslin  form  v!ith 

those  m  the  preceding  articles,  that,  like  them,  they  are  not  accom¬ 
panied  with  marks  of  quotation.  ^  accom- 

QPdiese  allusions  the  following  are  clear  specimens : 

*  Lardner, Cred.  vol.  i.  p.  m. 

I  8,  9. 

I  Matt.  xiii.  3.  or,  Luke  viii.  5.  S  Luke  xvi  18 
|(  Lardner,  Cred.  vol.  i.  p.  147.  ^ 


76 


Paleifs  View  of  the 


Matt 


r  ‘  Christ  was  baptized  of  John,  that  all  righteousness  might 
J  j  h'n  -  1 


JohnA  \ 


in  all  tlnngs,  and  MrmUss  as  a 

“^“Yet  the  Spirit  is  not  deceived,  being  from  God :  for  it 
,  knows  totaf  ce  if  cmnes  “'“'^'“‘'‘2 ’if  „hieh  etder  in 
A;SaS:'S  rsat  fndbte^’i:fnd‘''S;  Vies,  and  the 

Asm^tVarnrero^ado^^ 

r^S&rdre4Vnsbyna«c,.5,e^ 
borro'ws  words  “d -en^nts 

tioning  It;  which  show^  that  tms  was  authority. 

and  applying  writings  then  exta  ,  anostles;  had  conversed 

V.  t-olycaipt  tad  taen  «ngta  by  .he  apo«les 
with  many  who  had  seen  Christ,  Polvcaro  is  given  by 

bishop  of  Wna,  This  tesn^^^^^^^^^ 

Irenaeus,  who  in  his  youth  l^^d  seen  m  taught,  and  his  going 

IrenaBus)  in  which  the  biased  ^  7  R  ,  •  i-f  the  form  of  his 

out  and  coming  tn,  and  manner  of  bis  hfejd  the  t^^^ 

person,  and  the  discourses  he  madyo^^he^  W  e^^^ 

^a«;^  VmX’S™e^e;ji|^;ta  word  of  iife ;  all 

of  the  apostles  is  thus  1  otter  contains  nearly  forty  clear 

maining.  And  this,  though  a  short  strong  evi- 

allusions  to  the  books  ^ew  Testam  t^ 

dence  of  the  respect  which  Christians  ot  inai  ago  w 

Vmongst  these,  although  the  wriun^  of  SfJ  Pt„Sptn“e”lhen 
quently  used  by  (JJ^spei  of  SaintVatthew,  some  to  pas 

“ILsTnndt“r  ““  ““ 

‘With  supplication  beseeching  the  ali-seeing  ijuu 
tefnptation.' 


Chap  “^0  ■  Be  ye  therefore  w.^e^os  e^?  it  Meth'^and  thou  heare. 

,hl»u^X?eo;,r,hT„stnot« 

“XTiy  •!  Im ‘tile  S;  by  me  Ky  man  eater  in,  he  shall  be  saver 

X  Lardner,  Cred.  vol.  i.  p.  W2. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  77 

And  the  following,  for  the  sake  of  repeating  an  observation 
already  made,  that  words  of  our  Lord,  found  in  our  Gospels,  were 
at  this  early  day  quoted  as  spoken  by  him ;  and  not  only  so,  but 
quoted  with  sO  little  question  or  consciousness  of  doubt  about  their 
being  really  his  words,  as  not  even  to  mention,  much  less  to  can¬ 
vass,  tlie  authority  from  which  they  were  taken : 

‘  But  remembering  what  the  Lord  said,  teaching.  Judge  not,  that 
ye  be  not  judged  ;  forgive,  and  ye  shall  be  forgiven ;  be  ye  merci¬ 
ful,  that  ye  may  obtain  mercy ;  with  what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall 
be  measured  to  you  again.’* 

Supposing  PoWcarp  to  have  had  these  words  from  the  books  in 
which  we  now  find  them,  it  is  manifest  that  these  books  were  con¬ 
sidered  by  him,  and,  as  be  thought,  considered  by  his  readers,  as 
authentic  accounts  of  Christ’s  discourses :  and  tha’t  that  point  was 
incontestable. 

The  following  is  a  decisive,  though  what  we  call  a  tacit,  refer¬ 
ence  to  Saint  Peter’s  speech  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles : — ‘  whom 
God  hath  raised,  having  loosed  the  pains  of  death.’t 

\I.  Papias,t  a  hearer  of  John,  and  companion  of  Polycarp,  as  Ire- 
nseus  attests,  and  of  that  age,  as  all  agree,  in  a  passage  quoted  by 
Eusebius,  from  a  work  now  lost,  expressly  ascribes  the  respective 
Gospels  to  Matthew  and  Mark ;  and  in  a  manner  which  proves  that 
these  Gospels  must  have  publicly  borne  the  names  of  these  authors 
at  that  time,  and  probably  long  before ;  for  Papias  does  not  say  that 
one  Gospel  was  written  by  Matthew,  and  another  by  Mark;  but, 
assuming  this  as  perfectly  well  known,  he  tells  us  from  what  mate¬ 
rials  Mark  collected  his  account,  viz.  from  Peter’s  preaching,  and  in 
what  language  Matthew  WTOte,  viz.  in  Hebrew'.  Whether  Papias 
W'as  well  informed  in  this  statement,  or  not ;  to  the  point  for  which 
I  produce  this  testimony,  namely,  that  these  books  bore  these  names 
at  this  time,  his  authority  is  comple’^e. 

The  writers  hitherto  alleged,  had  all  lived  and  conversed  with 
some  of  the  apostles.  The  works  of  theirs  w'hich  remain,  are  in 
general  very  short  pieces,  yet  rendered  extremely  valuable  by  their 
antiquity ;  and  none,  short  as  they  are,  but  what  contain  some  im¬ 
portant  testimony  to  our  historical  Scriptures.^ 


*  Matt.  vii.  1,2.  V.  7;  Luke  vi.  37,  38.  tActsii.24. 

t  LarJner,  Cred.  vol.  i.  p.  23t). 

§  That  the  quotations  are  more  thinly  strown  in  these,  than  in  the 
writings  of  the  next  and  of  succeeding  ages,  is  in  a  good  measure  ac¬ 
counted  for  by  tlie  observation,  that  the  Scriptures  of  tlte  New  Testament 
had  not  yet,  nor  by  their  recency  hardly  could  have,  become  a  general 
part  of  Christian  education  ;  read  as  the  Old  Testament  was  by  tlie  Jews 
and  Christians  from  their  childhood,  and  thereby  intimately ’mixing,  as 
that  had  long  done,  with  all  their  religious  ideas,  and  with  their  language 
upon  religious  subjects.  In  process  of  time,  and  as  soon  perhaps  as  could 
be  expected,  this  came  to  be  the  case.  And  then  we  perceive  the  effect, 
in  a  proportionably  greater  frequency,  as  well  as  copiousness,  of  alia- 
8jon.(| 


G  3 


II  Mich.  Introd.  c.  ii.  sect.  vi. 


.^g  Paley's  View  of  the 

VII.  No.  long  after 

years  after  the  Although 

are  much  larger  than  any  tha  .  ^  of  which  was  addressed 

the  nature  of  his  two  wi^^^  a  Jew,  did  not 

to  heathens,  and  the  other  was  p,  •  ^  as  would  have 

lead  him  to  such  frequent  appeals  to 

each  expression,  a  very  Gosnels  within  the  com- 

We  meet  with  fr«™ 

pass  of  half  a  page  :  ‘An  in  ^  ^  ^  prepared  for  Satan  and 

into  outer  darkness,  which  I  a^her  hatn  prep 
his  angels,’  (which  is  from  Mathew  xxw  410  ^ 

in  other  words,  I  give  ?non  all  the  power  of  the 

TetTcThis  fZTr  '?nd  C  refc^ed  of 

t^'sInbefTndPh^^^^^^  on  the 

third  day.’  (This  from  Mark  vm  of  Christ’s 

H  .i.ri'eHvtd^uLwana^ohn 

and  we  believe  them.  n.r^rYl  tlip  Gosoel  of  Saint  John. 

Quotations  are  also  found  ^  p,e  observed  is,  that 

What,  moreover,  seems  ^  ®up  pl-o^^  almost  a  com- 

la  all  Jaatin-B  works  from  “‘f  „hkh  he  refers 

,,|e,o  life  of  Christ  there  “J?,  *>“'  T  related  concern, 

to  any  thing  as  said  or  done  by  ’  ^  shows,  that  these  Gospels, 

log  lim  in  our  present  Gospel^  which  sh^s,^,^^  from  which  the 

o°rh°L‘now’gS?  The  o.her%ra  circumstance  in 

*Lardoer,Cred.vol.i.p.2S8.  „,.tioularlv  onr  foot  Gospels,  con 

.hl.;(lfA'd.trsa&'^^  .lmes..-tones.sNew  and  Pull 

"“'wlX‘t,r™rLord  to 

Pluill  find  you,  in  the  same  I  ^  the  sense  of  many  of  oui 

SStrsallugrPaOdcLoasob.^ 

Lord.^^^dXfpcii^s  by  Ezekiel;  ‘I  will  j^adj 

'Words  resembling  these  ^te  ie<  1  -  xx.xiii. ‘-!0.  It  is  remarkable 

them  according  to  their  ^mys;  ^  Ezekiel.  Mr.  Jones  upon 

SSmsfallStS”  ((ElertSe^iiatfustiu  wrote  ontf  the  hotd 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  79 

Christ’s  baptism,  namely,  a  fiery  or  luminous  appearance  upon  the 
water,  which,  according  to  Epiphanius,  is  noticed  in  the  Gospel  of 
the  Hebrews  ;  arid  which  might  be  true:  but  which,  whether  true 
or  false,  is  mentioiied  by  Justin,  with  a  plain  mark  of  diminution 
when  coinpared  with  what  he  quotes  as  resting  upon  Scripture  au¬ 
thority.  The  reader  will  advert  to  this  distinction:  ‘And  then, 
when  Jesus  came  to  the  river  Jordan,  where  John  was  baptizing,  as 
Jesus  descended  into  the  water,  a  fire  also  was  kindled  in  Jordan ; 
and  when  he  came  up  out  of  the  water,  the  apostles  of  this  our 
Christ  have  written  that  the  Holy  Ghost  lighted  upon  him  as  a  dove. 

All  the  references  in  Justin  are  made  without  mentioning  the 
author ;  which  proves  that  these  books  were  perfectly  notorious, 
and  that  there  w'ere  no  other  accounts  of  Christ  then  extant,  or,  at 
least,  no  others  so  i-eceived  and  credited,  as  to  make  it  necessary  to 
distinguish  these  from  the  rest. 

But  although  Justin  mentions  not  the  author’s  name,  he  calls  the 
books,  ‘  Memoirs  composed  by  the  Apostles ‘  Memoirs  composed 
by  the  Apostles  and  their  Companions;’  which  descriptions,  the 
latter  especially,  exactly  suit  with  the  titles  w^hich  the  Gospels  and 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  now  bear. 

VHI.  Hegesippus* *  came  about  thirty  years  after  Justin.  Plis  tes¬ 
timony  is  remarkable  only  for  this  particular;  that  he  relates  of  him¬ 
self,  that  travelling  from  Palestine  to  Rome,  he  visited,  on  his  jour¬ 
ney,  many  bishops ;  and  that  ‘  in  every  succession,  and  in  every 
city,  the  same  doctrine  is  taught,  which  the  Law,  and  the  Prophets, 
and  the  Lord  teacheth.-’  This  is  an  important  attestation,  from  good 
authority,  and  of  high  antiquity.  It  is  generally  understood  that  by 
the  word  ‘  Lord,’Hegesippus  intended  some  writing  or  writings,  con¬ 
taining  the  teaching  of  Christ,  in  which  sense  alone  the  term  combines 
W’ith  the  other  terms  ‘  Law  and  Prophets,’  which  denote  wnlings ; 
and,  together  with  them,  admit  of  the  verb  ‘  teacheth  ’  in  the  present 
tense.  Then,  that  these  writings  were  some  or  all  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament,  is  rendered  probable  from  hence,  that  in  the 
fragments  of  his  works,  which  are  preserved  in  Eusebius,  and  in  a 
writer  of  the  ninth  century,  enough,  thoug:h  it  be  little,  is  left  to 
show',  that  Hegesippus  expressed  divers  things  in  the  style  of  the 
Gospels,  and  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  that  he  referred  to  the  his¬ 
tory  in  the  second  chapter  of  Matthew,  and  recited  a  text  of  that 
Gospel  as  spoken  by  our  Lord. 

IX.  At  this  time,  viz.  about  the  year  170,  the  churches  of  Lyons 
and  Vienne,  in  France,  sent  a  relation  of  the  sufferings  of  their 
martyrs  to  the  churches  of  Asia  and  Phrygia.t  The  epistle  is  pre¬ 
served  entire  by  Eusebius.  And  what  carries  in  some  measure  the 
testimony  of  these  churches  to  a  higher  age,  is,  that  they  had  now 


hath  said,’  intending  to  quote  the  words  of  God,  or  rather  the  sense  of 
those  words,  in  Ezekiel ;  and  that  some  transcriber,  imagining  these  to 
he  the  words  of  Christ,  inserted  in  his  copy  the  addition  ‘  Jesus  Christ. 
Vol.  i.  p.  .539. 

*  Larduer,  Cred.  vol.  i.  p.  314.  t  Ibid.  p.  333. 


go  Paley's  View  of  the 

for  their  bishop,  Pothinus,  who  was  ninety  years  old,  and  wh^e 
early  life  consequently  must  have  immediately  joined  on  with  Je 
times  of  the  apostles.  In  this  epistle  are  exact  references  to  the 
Gospel  of  Luke  and  John,  and  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  the  form 
of  reference  the  same  as  in  all  the  P^eeeding  articles.  That  fiom 
Saint  John  is  in  these  words;  ‘Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  wus 
spoken  by  the  Lord,  that  whosoever  killeth  you,  will  think  that  he 

doth  God  service.’*  ^  i  t 

X.  The  evidence  now  opens  upon  us  full  and  clear.  Irensust 

succeeded  Pothinus  as  bishop  of  Lyons.  In  his  youth  he  had  been 
a  disciple  of  Polycarp,  who  was  a  disciple  of  John.  In  the  time 
in  which  he  lived,  he  was  distant  not  much  more  than  a  century 
from  the  publication  of  the  Gospels;  in  his  instruction,  only  by  one 
step  separated  from  the  persons  of  the  apostles.  He  asserts  of  hira- 
elf  and  his  contemporaries,  that  they  were  able  to  reck«m  up,  in  all 
the  principal  churches,  the  succession  of  bishops  from  the  first.;  I 
remark  these  particulars  concerning  Irenaeus  with  more  formality 
than  usual;  because  the  testimony  which  this  writer  affords  to  the 
historical  books  of  the  New  Testament,  to  their  authority,  and  to 
the  titles  which  they  bear,  is  express,  positive,  and  exclusive.  Une 
principal  passage,  in  which  this  testimony  is  contained,  opens  with 
a  precise  assertion  of  the  point  which  we  have  laid  down  as  the 
fouridation  of  our  argument,  viz,  that  the  story  which  the  Gospels 
exhibit,  is  the  story  which  the  apostles  told.  ‘  We  have  not  recen  ed, 
saith  Irenaeus,  ‘  the  knowledge  of  the  way  of  our  salvation  by  any 
others  than  those  by  whom  the  gospel  has  been  brought  to  us. 
Which  Gospel  they  first  preached,  and  afterward,  by  the  will  of 
God,  committed  to  writing,  that  it  might  be  for  time  to  come  the 
foundation  and  pillar  of  our  faith.  For  after  that  our  Lord  rose  from 
the  dead,  and  they  (the  apostles)  were  endowed  from  above  with 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  coming  down  upon  them,  they  re¬ 
ceived  a  perfect  knowledge  of  all  things.  They  then  went  forth  to 
all  the  ends  of  the  earth,  declaring  to  men  the  blessing  of  heavenlv 
peaces  having  all  of  them,  and  every  one,  alike,  the  Gospel  of  God. 
Matthew  then,  among  the  Jews,  wrote  a  Gospel  in  their  own  lan- 
euaee,  while  Peter  and  Paul  were  preaching  the  Gospel  at  Ronie, 
and  founding  a  church  there:  and  after  their  exit,  Mark  also,  the 
disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter,  delivered  to  us  in  writing  the 
things  that  had  been  preached  by  Peter;  and  Luke,  the  companion 
of  Paul,  put  down  in  a  book  the  gospel  preached  by  him  (Paul). 
Afterward  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  who  also  leaned  upon  his 
breast  he  likewise  published  a  Gospel  while  he  dwelt  at  Ephesus 
in  Asia’  If  any  modern  divine  should  write  a  book  upon  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  he  could  not  assert  it  more  expressly,  or 
state  their  original  more  distinctly,  than  Iremeus  hath  done  withm 
little  more  than  a  hundred  years  after  they  were  published. 

The  correspondency,  in  the  days  of  Irenaeus,  of  the  oral  amt 


*  John  xvi.  2. 

J  Adv.  HiEres.  1.  iii.  c.  3. 


I  Larilner,  vol.  i.  p.  344. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  81 

n'ritten  tradition,  and  the  deduction  of  the  oral  tradition  through 
various  channels  from  the  age  of  the  apostles,  which  was  then  lately- 
passed,  and,  by  consequence,  the  probability  that  the  books  truly 
delivered  what  the  apostles  taught,  is  inferred  also  with  strict  regu¬ 
larity  from  another  passage  of  his  works.  ‘The  tradition  of  the 
apostles,’  this  father  saith,  ‘  hath  spread  itself  over  the  whole  uni¬ 
verse;  and  all  they,  who  search  after  the  sources  of  truth,  will  find 
this  tradition  to  be  held  sacred  in  every  church.  We  might  enu¬ 
merate  all  those  who  have  been  appointed  bishops  to  these  churches 
by  the  apostles,  and  all  their  successors  up  to  our  days.  It  is  by  this 
uninterrupted  succession  that  we  have  received  the  tradition  which 
actually  exists  in  the  church,  as  also  the  doctrines  of  truth,  as  it  was 
preached  by  the  apostles.’*  The  reader  will  observe  upon  this,  that 
the  same  Irenasus,  who  is  now  stating  the  strength  and  uniformity 
of  the  tradition,  we  have  before  seen  recognizing,  in  the  fullest 
manner,  the  authority  of  the  written  records ;  from  which  we  are 
entitled  to  conclude,  that  they  were  then  conformable  to  each  other. 

I  have  said,  that  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus  in  favor  of  our  Gospels 
is  exclusive  of  all  others.  1  allude  to  a  remarkable  passage  in  his 
works,  in  which,  for  some  reasons  sufficiently  fanciful,  he  endeavors 
to  show,  that  there  could  be  neither  more  nor  fewer  Gospels  than 
four.  With  his  argument  we  have  no  concern.  The  position  itself 
proves  that  four,  and  only  four.  Gospels  were  at  that  time  publicly 
read  and  acknowledged.  That  these  were  our  Gospels,  and  in  the 
state  in  which  we  now  have  them,  is  shown,  from  many  other  places 
of  this  writer  beside  that  which  we  have  already  alleged.  He 
mentions  how  Matthew  begins  his  Gospel,  how  Mark  begins  and 
ends  his,  and  their  supposed  reasons  for  so  doing.  He  enumerates 
at  length  the  several  passages  of  Christ’s  history  in  Luke,  which  are 
not  found  in  any  of  the  other  evangelists.  He  states  the  particular 
design  with  which  Saint  John  composed  his  Gospel,  and  accounts 
for  the  doctrinal  declarations  which  precede  the  narrative. 

To  the  book  of  the  Acts  of' the  Apostles,  its  author,  and  credit, 
the  testimony  of  Irenjeus  is  not  less  explicit.  Referring  to  the  ac¬ 
count  of  Saint  Paul’s  conversion  and  vocation,  in  the  ninth  chapter 
of  that  book,  ‘Nor  can  they,’  says  he,  meaning  the  parties  with 
whom  he  argues,  ‘  show  that  he  is  not  to  be  credited,  who  has  re¬ 
lated  to  us  the  truth  with  the  greatest  exactness.’  In  another  place, 
he  has  actually  collected  the  several  texts,  in  which  the  writer  of 
the  history  is  represented  as  accompanying  Saint  Paul ;  which 
leads  him  to  deliver  a  summary  of  almost  the  whole  of  the  last 
twelve  chapters  of  the  book. 

In  an  author  thus  abounding  with  references  and  allusions  to  the 
Scriptures,  there  is  not  one  to  any  apocryphal  Christian  writing 
whatever.  This  is  a  broad  line  of  distinction  betw'een  our  sacred 
books,  and  the  pretensions  of  all  others. 

The  force  of  the  testimony  of  the  period  which  W'e  have  consid¬ 
ered,  is  greatly  strengthened  by  the  observation,  that  it  is  the  testi- 


*  Iren,  in  Hxv.  I.  iii.  c.  3. 


02  Foley'’ s  View  of  the 

tius  at  Antioch,  Polycarp  at  Smyrna,  Justin  Alartyr  in  Sy  , 

"'f  rSmi.&e„agoras  and  Theophilaa,  Hved  abon,  ,Ha 

rvTdonfXA^rMVthewa^^^ 

rukrcwbicl  considering  the  nature  of  »mPOs.  W 

were  addressed  to  heathen  readers,  is  as  much  as  cuuld  be  expec  _^  U 

observing  also,  that  the  works  of  two  learned  CViristian  wiitem  w 
the  same  a'^'e  Miltiades  and  Panteenus,t  are  now  lost ,  of  whi 
Mdtkdes  Euseb  us  records,  that  his  writings  ‘  were  monuments  of 
zSor  the  divine  oracles;’  and  which  Pantenus,  as  Jerome  te«ti- 
fips  was  a  man  of  prudence  and  learning,  both  in  the  divine  Scrip 
tures  and  secular  hterature,  and  had  left 

the  Holy  Scriptures  then  extant;  passing  by  these  without  mme 

nt  the  distance  of  only  sixteen  years,  and  therefore  may  be  sa.id 
tSSj;nS‘rJXfn.ofn  an  uninterrrjp.od  — 

In  certain  of  Clement’s  works  now  lost, 
parts  are  recited  by  Eusebius,  there  is  given  a  d^^tmct  account 

ceived  and  rehed  upon ;  and  that  the  dates,  occasions,  'tndjJ'icum- 

remain  the  four  Gospels  are  repeatedly  quoted  by  the  names 

5nhL  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  expressly  ascribed  to 
Luke.  In  one  place,  after  mentioning  a  particular  rnrcumstance, 
he  adds  these  remarkable  words  :  ‘We  have  not  'his  passage  ^ 

four  Gospch  delivered  to  ys,  but  in  that  'i’^otS^d  all 

Vnifh  nets  a  marked  distinction  between  the  four  Gospels  anu  an 

other  histories,  or  pretended  histories,  of  Christ.  In  q  g. 

his  works  the  perfect  confidence  with  which  he  received  the  Go^ 
pels  °s  s  gn  fie§  by  these  words:  ‘That  this  is  true,  appeata  from 

Ke  thit  it  was  written  in  the  Gospel  according  to  Saint  Luke , 
and  again,  ‘  I  need  not  use  many  words,  but  only  to  allege  t 
gelic  voice  of  the  Lord.’  His  quotations  are  tiumeroiis^  The  my 
in<rs  of  Christ,  of  which  he  alleges  many,  are  all  taken  from  o 


*  Lardner,  vol.  i.  p-  400 — 422. 
I  Ibid,  vol  ii.  p.  4‘J9. 


t  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  413.  450. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  83 

Gospels ;  the  single  exception  to  this  observation  apnearing  to  be  a 
loose*  quotation  of  a  passage  in  Saint  Matthe  ws’s  Gospel. 

XII.  In  the  age  in  which  they  lived, t  Tertullian  joins  on  wdth 
Clement.  The  number  of  the  Gospels  then  received,  the  names  of 
the  evangelists,  and  their  proper  descriptions,  are  exhibited  by  this 
writer  in  one  short  sentence Among  the  aposlles,  John  and 
Matthew  teach  us  the  faith;  among  apostolical  men,  Luke  and 
Mark  refresh  it.’  The  next  passage  to  be  taken  from  Tertullian, 
affords  as  complete  an  attestation  to  the  authenticity  of  our  books, 
as  can  be  w'ell  imagined.  After  enumerating  the  churches  which 
had  been  founded  by  Paul,  at  Corinth,  in  Galatia,  at  Philippi,  Thes- 
salonica,  and  Ephesus ;  the  church  of  Rome  established  by  Peter 
and  Paul,  and  other  churches  derived  from  John ;  he  proceeds  thus  : 
— ‘  I  say  then,  that  with  them,  but  not  with  them  only  which  are 
apostolical,  but  with  all  who  have  fellowship  with  them  in  the 
same  faith,  is  that  Gospel  of  Luke  received  from  its  first  publication, 
which  we  so  zealously  maintain :’  and  presently  afterward  adds ; 
‘The  same  authority  of  the  apostolical  churches  will  support  the 
other  Gospels,  which  W’e  have  from  them  and  according  to  them,  I 
mean  John’s  and  Matthew’s ;  although  that  likewise  wLich  Mark 
published  may  be  said  to  be  Peter’s,  whose  interpreter  Mark  was.’ 
In  another  place  Tertullian  affirms,  that  the  three  other  Gospels 
were  in  the  hands  of  the  churches  from  the  beginning,  as  well  as 
Luke’s.  This  noble  testimony  fixes  the  universality  wdth  which 
the  Gospels  were  received,  and  their  antiquity;  that  they  were  in 
the  hands  of  all,  and  had  been  so  from  the  first.  And  this  evidence 
appears  not  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the  publi¬ 
cation  of  the  books.  The  reader  must  be  given  to  understand,  that 
when  Tertullian  speaks  of  maintaining  or  defending  (fuendi)  the 
Gospel  of  Saint  Luke,  he  only  means  maintaining  or  defending  the 
integrity  of  the  copies  of  Luke  received  by  Christian  churches,  in 
opposition  to  certain  curtailed  copies  used  by  Marcion,  against 
whom  he  WTites. 

This  author  frequently  cites  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  under  that 
title,  once  calls  it  Luke’s  Commentary,  and  observes  how  Saint 
Paul’s  epistles  confirm  it. 

After  this  general  evidence,  it  is  unnecessary  to  add  particular 
quotations.  These,  however,  are  so  numerous  and  ample,  as  to 
have  led  Dr.  Lardner  to  observe,  ‘  that  there  are  more,  and  larger 
quotations  ol’the  small  volume  of  the  New  Testament  in  this  one 


*  '  Ask  great  things,  and  the  small  shall  be  added  unto  you.’  Clement 
rather  chose  to  expound  the  wmrds  of  Matthew  (chap.  vi.  3'1.)  than  lite¬ 
rally  to  cite  them;  and  this  is  most  undeniably  proved  by  another  place 
in  the  same  Clement,  where  he  both  produces  the  text  and  these  w'ords  as 
an  exposition  : — ‘  Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and  its  rishteous- 
iiess,  for  these  are  the  great  things  :  but  the  sma'll  things,  and  things  re¬ 
lating  to  this  life,  shall  be  added  unto  you.’  Jones’s  New  and  Full 
Method,  vol.  i.  p,  5.03. 
t  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  p.  561. 


04,  Paley's  View  oj  the 

Christian  author,  than  there  are  of  all  the  works  of  Cicero  in  writers 

a„a 

We  Tay  again  likewise  remark  ‘he  "We  extent  through  which 
the  repnlaLri  of  the  Gospels,  and  of  *6  Acts  of  “'f 

in  France,  Clemen-t  at  Alexandria,  Tertullian  at  Carthage,  1  » 

the  same  books  of  historical  Scriptures,  and,  I  may  say,  quot  g 

th^e  alone.  ,  ^nd  that  occupied  by  no 

smS  nlb^^rChristian'^wri.elsft  whose 

fragments  and  quotations,  and  in  every  one  of  , 

ence  or  other  to  the  Gospels  (and  in  one 

nreserved  in  Theodoret,  is  an  abstract  of  the  whole  Gospel  lust  yj, 
brin-rus  to  a  name  of  great  celebrity  in  Christian  antiquity,  Oiigent 
rf  Alex“ndri?who,  in^he  qnuntiw  of  hts  writings  exceeded  the 
TTirmt  laborious  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  authors.  iSolhing  can  oe 
more  nereiZory  upon  the  subject  now  under  consideration,  and 
ftom  a  3r  o/hiB  learning  and  information, 
than  the  declaration  of  Origen,  preseiwed,  in  extmct  iroi  h 
works,  by  Eusebius;  ‘That  the  fo^^^^^peL  alone  a  e 
without ‘dispute  by  the  whole  ^tiurcL  of  God  under  hea^^^^^ 

which  declaration  is  immediately  subjoined  a  bi  ef  lustory  o^^ 

respective  authors,  to  whom  they  were  touShout 

cribed.  The  language  holden  concerning  he  gospels,  througnou 

works  of  Orieen  which  remain,  entirely  correspond  wit  the 

ttiln^ere  His  attestation  to  the  Acts  of  the 

no  less  nositive  •  ‘And  Luke  also  once  more  scunds  the  tiumpei, 
rdathi/the  acts  of  the  apostles.’  The  universality  with  which  the 
Scriptures  were  then  read,  is  well  ^ig^^^^ed  by  this  writer,  map  - 

sf^nntfprrboXsCck^r:^  ^ Jw -I 

““SlnS^tlungfo^G^^  fto“m  .ifepSion  ofW  world 

We  ^igh.  a.  Vll  make  a  -leclion  of  Ihe  qaom. 
tions  of  Scripture  in  Dr.  Clarke’s  Sermons.  They  are  so  ttiiciuy 


A^::Sonius,  Caius, 

bikop  of  Jerusalem,  Hippolytus.  Ammonius,  Julius  Aliicaiius. 
J  Lardner,  vol.  il-  p-  234. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  85 

sown  in  the  works  of  Origen,  that  Dr.  Mill  says,  ‘If  we  had  all  his 
w  Jrks  remaining,  w^e  should  have  before  us  almost  the  whole  text 
of  the  Bible.’* 

Origen  notices,  in  order  to  censure,  certain  apocryphal  Gospels. 
He  also  uses  four  writings  of  this  sort;  that  is,  throughout  his  large 
works  he  once  or  twice,  at  the  most,  quotes  each  of  the  four ;  but 
always  with  some  mark,  either  of  direct  reprobation  or  of  caution 
to  his  readers,  manifestly  esmeming  them  of  little  or  no  authority. 

XIV.  Gregory  bishop  of  Neocfesarea,  and  Dionysius  of  Alexan¬ 
dria,  Avere  scholars  of  Origen.  Their  testimony,  therefore,  though 
full  and  particular,  may  be  reckoned  a  repetition  only  of  his.  The 
series,  however,  of  evidence  is  continued  by  Cyprian  bishop  of  Car¬ 
thage,  who  floui'ished  within  twenty  years  after  Origen.  ‘The 
church,’  says  this  father,  ‘  is  watered,  lilve  Paradise,  by  four  rivers, 
that  is,  by  four  Gospels.’  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  also  frequently 
quoted  by  Cyprian  under  that  name,  and  the  name  of  the  ‘  Divine 
Scriptures.’  In  his  various  waitings  are  such  constant  and  copious 
citations  of  Scripture,  as  to  place  this  part  of  the  testimony  beyond 
controversy.  Nor  is  there,  in  the  works  of  this  eminent  African 
bishop,  one  quotation  of  a  spurious  or  apocrj'^phal  Christian  writing. 

XV.  Passing  over  a  crowdt  of  writers  following  Cyprian  at  differ¬ 
ent  distances,  but  all  within  forty  years  of  his  time ;  and  who  all,  in 
the  imperfect  remains  of  their  works,  either  cite  the  historical  Scrip¬ 
tures  of  the  New  Testament,  or  speak  of  them  in  terms  of  profound 
respect ;  I  single  out  Victorin,  bishop  of  Pettaw  in  Germany,  merely 
on  account  of  the  remoteness  of  his  situation  from  that  of  Origen 
and  Cyprian,  who  were  Africans ;  by  which  circumstance  his  testi¬ 
mony,  taken  in  conjunction  w'ith  theirs,  prove  that  the  Scripture  his¬ 
tories,  and  the  same  histories,  were  known  and  received  from  one 
side  of  the  Christian  world  to  the  other.  This  bishopt  lived  about 
the  year  290 :  and  in  a  commentary  upon  this  text  of  the  Revelation, 

‘  The  first  was  like  a  lion,  the  second  w'as  like  a  calf,  the  third  like 
a  man,  and  the  fourth  like  a  flying  eagle,’  he  makes  out  that  by  the 
four  creatures  are  intended  the  four  Gospels ;  and,  to  show  the  pro¬ 
priety  of  the  symbols,  he  recites  the  subject  with  which  each  evan¬ 
gelist  opens  his  history.  The  explication  is  fanciful,  but  the  testi¬ 
mony  positive.  He  also  expressly  cites  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

XVI.  Arnobius  and  Lactantius,$  about  the  year  300,  compose 
formal  arguments  upon  the  credibility  of  the  Christian  religion.  As 
these  arguments  were  addressed  to  Gentiles,  the  authors  abstain 
from  quoting  Christian  books  by  name ;  one  of  them  giving  this  veiy 
reason  for  his  reserve ;  but  when  thw  come  to  state  for  the  informa¬ 
tion  of  their  readers,  the  outlines  of  Christ’s  history,  it  is  apparent 


*  Mill,  Proleg.  cap.  vi.  p.66. 

t  Novatus,  Rome,  A.  D.  251 ;  Dionysius,  Rome,  A.  D.  259 ;  Commodian, 
A.  D.  270;  Anatolius,  Laodicea,  A.  D.  270;  Theognostus,  A,  D.  282;  Me¬ 
thodius,  Lycia,  A.  D.  290;  Pliileas,  Egypt,  A.  D.  226. 

I  Lardner,  vol.  v.  p.  214.  §  Ibid.  vol.  vii.  p.  43. 201. 


00  Paley^s  View  of  the 

'  Arnobius  ^Sbcates,  without  mentioning  their  names, 

nSseTotlhffac^w^^^^^ 

aSSEASsBsS 

feiings  of  the  Christian  historians,  meaning  by  that  term  our  evan 
We  close  the  series  of  testimonies  with  that  of  Eusebius.* 

bis^rof“rfo« 

■smii 

mle^herlongquotmmnsfro^ 

f„CSaUarge:’rnhe%“ccasi^ 

i§BS«S=£5f= 

IgliSIssssa: 


*  Lardner,  vol.  viii.p.  33. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  87 

bius,  there  is  no  room  for  any  question  upon  the  subject ;  the  works 
of  Christian  writers  being  as  full  of  texts  of  Scripture  and  of  refer¬ 
ences  to  Scripture,  as  the  discourses  of  modern  divines.  Future 
testimonies  to  the  books  of  Scripture  could  only  ^rove,  that  they 
never  lost  their  character  or  authority. 


SECT.  II. 

When  the  Scriptures  are  quoted,  or  alluded  to,  they  are  quoted  with 
peculiar  respect,  as  books  sui  generis ;  as  possessing  an  authority 
which  belonged  to  no  other  books,  and  as  conclusive  in  all  questims 
and  controversies  amongst  Christians. 

Beside  the  general  strain  of  reference  and  quotation,  which  uni¬ 
formly  and  strongly  indicates  this  distinction,  the  following  may  be 
regarded  as  specific  testimonies : 

I.  Theophilus'*'  bishop  of  Antioch,  the  sixth  in  succession  from  the 
apostles,  and  who  flourished  little  more  than  a  century  after  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  were  w  ritten,  having  occasion  to  quote 
one  of  our  Gospels,  writes  thus :  ‘  These  things  the  Holy  Scriptures 
teach  us,  and  all  who  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  among  whom 
John  says.  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  wdlh 
God.’  Again :  ‘  Concerning  the  righteousness  which  the  law  teaches, 
the  like  things  are  to  be  found  in  the  Prophets  and  the  Gospels', 
because  that,  being  inspired,  spoke  by  one  and  the  same  Spirit  of 
God.’t  No  words  can  testify  more  strongly  than  these  do,  the  high 
and  peculiar  respect  in  which  these  books  w'ere  holden. 

II.  A  w'riter  against  Artemon,t  who  may  be  supposed  to  come 
about  one  hundred  and  fifty-eight  years  after  the  publication  of  the 
Scripture,  in  a  passage  quoted  by  Eusebius,  uses  these  expressions  : 
‘  Possibly  what  they  (our  adversaries)  say,  might  have  been  credited, 
if  first  of  all  the  Divine  Scriptures  did  not  contradict  them;  and 
then  the  writings  of  certain  brethren  more  ancient  than  the  times 
of  Victor.’  The  brethren  mentioned  by  name,  are  Justin,  Miltiades, 
Tatian,  Clement,  Irenseus,  Melito,  wdtn  a  general  appeal  to  many 
more  not  named.  This  passage  proves,  first,  that  there  was  at  that 
time  a  collection  called  Divine  Scriptures ;  secondly,  that  these 
Scriptures  were  esteemed  of  higher  authority  than  the  writings  of 
the  most  early  and  celebrated  Christians. 

III.  In  a  piece  asc  ribed  to  Hippolytus,$  who  lived  near  the  same 
time,  the  author  professes,  in  giving  his  correspondent  instruction  in 
the  things  about  wh.ch  he  inquires,  ‘  to  draw  out  of  the  sacred  foun¬ 
tain,  and  to  set  before  him  from  the  sacred  Scriptures,  what  may 
aflTord  him  satisfaction.’  Fie  then  quotes  immediately  Paul’s  epistles 
to  Timothy,  and  afterward  many  books  of  the  New  Testament. 


*  Lardner,  Cred.  part  ii.  vol.  i.  p.  429. 
J  Ib.  vol.  iii.  p.  40. 


t  Ib.  vol.  i.  p.  448. 

§  Ib.  vol.  iii.  p.  112. 


1 


38  j  Palerfs  View  of  the 

This  preface  to  the  quotations  carries  in  it  a  marked  distinction  be¬ 
tween  the  Scriptures  and  other  books. 

IV.  ‘  Our  assertions  and  discourses  (saith  Origen  ),  are  unworthy 

of  credit :  we  must  receive  the  Scriptures  as  witnesses.  Alter  treat- 
ing  of  the  duty  of  prayer,  he  proceeds  with  h^  argument  thus: 
‘What  we  have  said,  may  be  proved  from  the  Dwme  Scriptures. 
In  his  books  againt  Celsus,  we  find  this  passage  =  ‘That  our  religion 
teaches  us  to  seek  after  wisdom  shall  be  shown,  both  out  of  the  an¬ 
cient  Jewish  Scriptures,  which  we  also  use,  and  out  of  those  written 
since  Jesus,  which  are  believed  in  the  churches  to  be  divine. 
These  expressions  afford  abundant  evidence  of  the  peculiar  and  ex- 
elusive  authority  which  the  Scriptures  possessed.  +  4.1.  +  f- 

V.  Cvprian,  bishop  of  Carthage, t  whose  age  lies  close  to  that  ot 
Origen,'^earnestly  exhorts  Christian  teachers,  in  all  doubtful  cases, 
‘to  go  back  to  tie  fountain ;  and,  if  the  truth  has  in  any  case  been 
shaken,  to  recur  to  the  Gospels  and  apostolic  writings.  —  The  pre¬ 
cepts  of  the  gospel  (says  he  in  another  place),  are  nothing  less 
than  authoritative  divine  lessons,  the  foundations  our  hope,  the 
supports  of  our  faith,  the  guides  of  our  way,  the  safe-guards  of  our 
course  to  heaven.’ 

VI.  Novatus,t  a  Roman,  contemporary  with  Cyprian,  appeals  to 
the  Scriptures,  as  the  authority  by  which  all  errors  were  to  be  re¬ 
pelled,  and  disputes  decided.  ‘That  Christ  is  not  only  man,  but 
God  also,  is  proved  by  the  sacred  authority  of  the  Divine  Writings. 

_ ‘The  Divine  Scripture  easily  detects  and  confutes  the  frauds  ot 

heretics  ’—‘It  is  not  by  the  fault  of  the  heavenly  Scriptures,  which 
never  deceive.’  Stronger  assertions  than  these  could  not  be  used 

VII.  At  the  distance  of  twenty  years  from  the  writer  last  cited, 
Anatolius, $  a  learned  Alexandrian,  and  bishop  of  Laodicea,  speak¬ 
ing  of  the  rule  for  keeping  Easter,  a  question  at  that  day  agitated 
with  much  earnestness,  says  of  those  whom  he  opposed,  ‘  I  hey  can 
by  no  means  prove  their  point  by  the  authority  of  the  divine  Scrip- 

VIII.  The  Arians,  Avho  sprung  up  about  fifty  years  after  this, 
argued  strenuously  against  the  use  of  the  words  consubstantial,  and 
essence,  and  like  phrases ;  ‘  because  they  were  not  in  Scripture.  H  And 
in  the  same  strain,  one  of  their  advocates  opens  a  conference  witii 
Augustine,  after  the  following  manner:  ‘If  you  say  what  is  reasona¬ 
ble,  I  must  submit.  If  you  allege  any  thing  from  the  Divine  Scrip¬ 
tures,  which  are  common  to  both,  I  must  hear.  But  unscriptural 
expressions  (quas  extra  Scripturam  sunt)  deserve  no  regard. 

Athanasius,  the  great  antagonist  of  Arianism,  after  having  enu¬ 
merated  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  adds,  ‘  These  are 
the  fountain  of  salvation,  that  he  who  thirsts  may  be  satisfied  with  the 
oracles  contained  in  them.  In  these  alone  the  doctrine  of  salvation 


*  Lardner,  Cred.  vol.  iii.  p.  287— 2S9. 
t  Ib.  vol.  V.  p.  102. 
if  Ib.  vol.  vii.  p.  283, 284. 


t  Ib.  vol.  iv.  p.  840. 
§  Ib.  p.  146. 


Evidences  of  Vhristianity. 


89 


is  proclaimed.  Let  no  man  add  to  them,  or  take  any  thinff  from 
them.’* 

IX.  Cyril,  bishop  of  Jernsalem,t  who  wrote  abont  twenty  years 
after  the  appearance  of  Arianism,  uses  these  remarkable  words : 
‘  Conceniing  the  divine  and  holy  mysteries  of  faith,  not  the  least 
article  ought  to  be  delivered  without  the  Divine  Scriptures.’  We 
are  assured  that  Cyril’s  Scriptures  were  the  same  as  ours,  for  he  has 
left  us  a  catalogue  of  the  bo  oks  included  under  that  name. 

X.  Epiphanius,t  twerity  years  after  Cyril,  challenges  the  Arians. 
and  the  followers  of  Origen,  ‘  to  produce  any  passage  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  favoring  their  sentiments.’ 

XI.  Phcebadius,  a  Gallic  bishop,  who  lived  about  thirty  years 

M  council  of  Nice,  testifies,  that  ‘  the  bishops  of  that  coun¬ 

cil  first  consulted  the  sacred  volumes,  and  then  declared  their 
faith.’$ 

XII.  Basil,  bishop  of  Csesarea,  in  Cappadocia,  contemporary  with 
Lpiphanius,  says,  ‘  that  hearers  instructed  in  the  Scriptures  ought  to 
examine  what  is  said  by  their  teachers,  and  to  embrace  what  is 
agreeable  to  the  Scriptures,,  and  to  reject  what  is  otherwise.’!! 

Lphraim,  the  Syrian,  a  celebrated  writer  of  the  same  times, 
beai-s  this  conclusive  testimony  to  the  proposition  which  forms  the 
subject  of  our  present  chapter:  ‘The  truth  written  in  the  sacred 
volume  of  the  gospel,  is  a  perfect  rule.  Nothing  can  be  taken  from 
it  nor  added  to  it,  without  great  guilt.’H 

If  we  add  Jerome  to  these,  it  is  only  for  the  evidence  which 
he  affords  of  the  judgment  of  preceding  ages.  Jerome  observes, 
concerning  the  quotations  of  ancient  Christian  writers,  that  is,  of 
writers  who  were  ancient  in  the  year  400,  that  they  made  a  distinc¬ 
tion  between  books ;  some  they  quoted  as  of  authority,  and  others 
not :  which  observation  relates  to  the  books  of  Scripture,  compared 
with  other  WTitings,  apocryphal  or  heathen.*’^ 


SECT.  III. 


The  Scriptures  were  in  very  early  times  collected  into  a  distinct 


volume. 


Ignatius,  who  was  bishop  of  Antioch  within  forty  years  after  the 
Ascension,  and  who  had  lived  and  conversed  with  the  apostles, 
speaks  of  the  gospel  and  of  the  apostles  in  terms  which  render  it 
W‘ry  probable  that  he  meant  by  the  gospel,  the  book  or  volume  of  the 
Gospels,  and  by  the  Apostles,  the  book  or  volume  of  their  epistles. 
His  words  in  one  place  are,tt  ‘  Fleeing  to  the  gospel  as  the  flesh  of 
Jesus,  and  to  the  apostles  as  the  presbytery  of  the  church :’  that  is, 


*  Lardner,  Cred.  vol.  xii.  p.  182.  f  Ib.  vol.  viii.  p.  276. 


§  lb.  vol.  ix.  p.  52. 
ir  Ib.  vol.  ix.  p.  222. 


**  Ib.  vol.  X.  p.  123,  124. 


tt  Ib.  part  ii.  vol.  i.  p.  180. 

H2 


22 


90 


Paley*s  View  of  the 


as  Le  Clerc  interprets  them,  ‘  in  order  to  understand  the  wiU  of 
hp  flpd  to  the  Gospels,  which  he  believed  no  less  than  if  Christ  .n 
the  flesh  had  been  speaking  to  him ;  and  to  the  writings  of 
ties  whom  he  esteemed  as  the  presbytery  of  the  "“e  Chnstiim 
rhnreh’  It  must  be  observed,  that  about  eighty  years  afe  ’ 

rtte1^L^e?^■5ofpciS 

which  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  division  ol  these 

writings,  were  usually  expressed.  tTip  eospel 

Another  passage  from  IgnaUus  is  the  following  .  But  “0 
has  somewhat  in  it  more  excellent,  the  appearance  of  our  Lord  Jesus 

And  a  S“°Ye“tgSThS°rken  to  the  prophets,  but  especially 
to  the  gospel,,  in  which  the  P^fS,Yit'’paTsage,t?‘p™pS  and 

t  go3re%^Slrlj«nc£i 

‘”TOfrerpretaflonrf''the  word  ‘  Gospel,;  in  the  passages  above 
lS™  ightshow  u"s  'a  LartUm  a-^rd  ng  to  .f  , 

I !;  W  r^lTee^r  an. 

of  his  doctrine.  +1,13  nn^sasres  thev  ure  not  only  evi* 

"'IhSiS  relates,  that  Qu^ 

|F'"V5‘?rin£f g“  ‘EtSt 

Sd"lefme  him  the  «»oth  of  Quadra^^^^^^^ 

?o%'e^1e“  hl'Cd  goodCrou^^^^^ 

recorded  of  the  Gospels,  took  "e  “de^^^  that  they 

enty  years  after  they  were  pu  'i^uig  long  before  this  time) 

must,  before  this  ume  (an  ,  P  esteem  in  Ihe  churchei 

lh\«a^1gL.°:;t^ru^cras‘-t;SSe  now,  we  And,  cl 


f  Ib.  part  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  ^82. 
§  Ib.  c.  iv. 


*  Lardner,  Cred.  vol.  ii.  p.  516. 

1  Ignat.  Ep.  c.  i.  „  nop 

y  Lardner,  Cred.  part  u.  vol.  i.  p.236. 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 


91 


leeted  into  a  volume ;  and  the  immediate  successors  of  the  apostles, 
they  who  preached  the  religion  of  Christ  to  those  who  had  not 
already  heard  it,  carried  the  volume  with  them,  and  delivered  it  to 
their  converts. 

III.  Irenaeus,  in  the  year  178,*  puts  the  evangelic  and  apostolic 
writings  m  connexion  with  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  manifestly 
^  ®  code  or  collection  of  Christian  sacred  writings, 

as  the  other  expressed  the  code  or  collection  of  Jewish  sacred 
writings.  And, 

bishop  of  Sardis,  writing  to  one  Onesimus, 
tells  his  correspondent, t  that  he  had  procured  an  accurate  account 
ot  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  occurrence,  in  this  pas¬ 
sage,  oi  the  term  Old  Testament,  has  been  brought  to  prove,  and  it 
certainly  does  prove,  that  there  was  then  a  volume  or  collection  of 
writings  called  the  New  Testament. 

■  time  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  about  fifteen  years  after 

the  last  quoted  testimony,  it  is  apparent  that  the  Christian  Scriptures 
were  divided  into  parts,  under  the  general  titles  of  the  Gospels  and 
Apostles ;  and  that  both  these  were  regarded  as  of  the  highest  au- 
thority.  One,  out  of  many  expressions  of  Clement,  alluding  to  this 
distribution,  IS  the  following: — ‘There  is  a  consent  and  harmony 
Detwera  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  the  Apostles  and  the  Gospel.’^: 

.  ’p*-  division,  ‘  Prophets,  Gospels,  and  Apostles,’  appears 

m  lertullian,$  the  contemporary  of  Clement.  The  collection  of  the 
(jospels  IS  likewise  called  by  this  writer  the  ‘  Evangelic  Instru¬ 
ment  ;'i|  the  whole  volume,  the  ‘New Testament;’  and  the  two  parts, 
the  ‘Gospels  and  Apostles.’IT 

VII  From  many  writers  also  of  the  third  century,  and  especially 
nom  Cyprian,  who  lived  in  the  middle  of  it,  it  is  collected,  that  the 
Chnstian  Scriptures  were  divided  into  two  codes  or  volumes,  one 
called  the  ‘Gospels,  or  Scriptures  of  the  Lord,’  the  other,  the  ‘Apos¬ 
tles,  or  Epistles  of  the  Apostles.’** 

,  ^*^s®bius,  as  we  have  already  seen,  takes  some  pains  to 
snow,  that  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  had  been  justly  placed  by  the 
tncients  ‘  the  fourth  in'order,  and  after  the  other  three  ’tt  These 
ire  the  terms  of  his  proposition :  and  the  veiy  introduction  of  such 
m  argument  proves  incontestably,  that  the  four  Gospels  had  been 
collected  into  a  volume,  to  the  exclusion  of  every  other  j  that  their 
irder  in  the  volume  had  been  adjusted  with  much  consideration; 
wd  that  this  had  been  done  by  those  who  were  called  ancients  in 
he  time  of  Eusebius. 

In  the  Diocletian  persecution,  in  the  year  303,  the  Scriptures  were 
ought  out  and  burnt  many  suffered  death  rather  than  deliver 
hem  up ;  and  those  who  betrayed  them  to  the  persecutors,  were 
iccounted  as  lapse  and  apostate.  On  the  other  hand,  Constantine, 


*  Lardner,  Cred.  part  ii.  vol.  i.  d.  SRI. 


t  Ib.  p.  331. 

II  Ib.  p.  574. 

if  Ib.  vol.  viii.  p.  90. 


92 


Paleifs  View  of  the 


after  his  conversion,  gave  directions  for  multiplying  copies  of  the 

divine  oracles,  and  for  magnificently  adornmg  f 

of  the  imperial  treasuiy."^  What  the  Christians  of  that  g  y 

embellished  in  their  prosperity,  and  which  is 

preserved  under  persecution,  was  the  very  volume  of  the  New  1  es 

lament  which  we  now  read. 


SECT.  IV. 


Our  present  sacred  writings  were  soon  distinguished  by  appropriate 
names  and  titles  of  respect. 


PoLYCAUP.  ‘  I  trust  that  ye  are  well  exercised  in  the  Hdy  Scrip¬ 
tures as  in  these  Scriptures  it  is  said.  Be  y®.  sin  no  , 

and  let  not  the  sun  go  down  upon  yo^r  wrath.t  This  passage  is 
extremely  important:  because  it  proves  that,  in  the  time  of  Poly 
carp,  who  had  lived  with  the  apostles,  there  were  Christian  writings 
distinguished  by  the  name  of  ‘  Holy  Scriptures,  or  Sacred  Writings. 
Moreover,  the  text  quoted  by  Polycarp  is  a  text  found  in  the  collec¬ 
tion  at  this  day.  What  also  the  same  Polycarp  hath  elsewhere 
quoted  in  the  same  manner,  may  be  considered  as  proved  to 
to  the  collection;  and  this  comprehends  Saint  Matthew  s,  and  prob- 
ably  S^nt  Luke’s  Gospel,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ten  ep.stks  of 
Paul,  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  the  First  of  John.J  In  another 
place.  Polycarp  has  these  words :  ‘  Whoever  perverts  the  oracles  of 
Ste  Lord  to  his  own  lusts,  and  says  there  is  neither  resurrection  nor 
judgment,  he  is  the  first-born  of  Satan.  ^It  does  not  appear  what 
else  Polycarp  could  mean  by  the  ‘oracles  of  the  Lord,  but  those 
same  ‘  Holy  Scriptures,’  or  Sacred  Writings,  of  which  he  had  spoken 

1)0  for© 

^II.  iustin  Martyr,  whose  apology  was  written  about  thirty  years 
after  Polycarp’s  epistle,  expressly  cites  some  of  our  present  histone 
under  the  title  of  Gospel,  and  that  not  as  a  name  by  him  first  as¬ 
cribed  to  them,  but  as  the  name  by  which  they  were  pnerallj 
known  in  his  time.  His  words  are  these ‘  For  the 
memoirs  composed  by  them,  which  are  called  Gospels,  have  thu. 
delivered  it,  that  Jesus  commanded  them  to  take  bread,  and  gi\( 
thanksJll  There  exists  no  doubt,  but  that,  by  the  memoirs  abov< 
mentioned,  Justin  meant  our  present  historical  Scriptures;  to 
throughout  his  works  he  quotes  these,  and  no  others. 

III.  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Corinth,  who  came  thirty  years  atte 
Justin,  in  a  passage  preserved  in  Eusebius  (for  his  works  are  lost 
speaks  ‘  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Lord.’IF 

^IV.  And  at  the  same  time,  or  very  nearly  so,  by  Irenseus  bisho 


t  Ib.  vol.  i.p.  203. 

11  Ib.  p.  271.  IT  lb.  p.  298. 


*  Lardner,  Cred.  vol.  vii.  p.  432. 
t  Ib.  vol.  i.  p.  223.  §  lb.  p-  222. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  93 

of  Lyons  in  France  *  they  are  called  ‘Divine  Scriptures  ’_<Divinp 
Wrings ’t  Th^mmtari  ^  Apostolic 

toe  apj»Ua[r„„‘e  -sP“P''eIiended  by  him  under 

V.  Saint  Matthew’s  Gospel  is  quoted  by  Theophilus  bishon  of 

gelk  VoiS'^’f 

l,Kr  ®nd  the  copious  works  of  Clement  of  AlexaTiHrin 

•toks'tnhriVewTef''  to^the 

ill:  •  Aew  Testament  the  various  titles  of  ‘  Sacred  Books!  ’ 

vr  4r  , ’iT"  Evangelical  Canon.’$ 

nf  who  joins  on  with  Clement,  beside  adopting  most 

Dtorn  ’r*!!™''  "““sed.  calk  the  Self  TuJ 

lavls  S  efSr  of  Roman 

of  twenty  years  later,  they  are  ‘Books 

ness  spirit,  -  Divine  Fountains,’-' Fountain  of  the  Kvine  Full- 

peJuliar?e?pir  ?Lv^^n  evidences  of  high  and 

publication  of  the  hanki  occur  within  two  -centuries  from  the 
Danion«  nP  tu  books.  Some  of  them  commence  with  the  com- 

tough  a^serfes’Sfwritefafo  ‘¥y™orease  in  number  and  variety, 

from  fhe  toS  ofS  SL  « 


SECT.  V. 

Our  Scriptures  were  publicly  reaa  ana  expmirided  in  the  religious 
assemblies  if  the  early  Christians. 

140,  which  was  seventy 
'’nsr.  I  years  after  some,  and  less,  probably,  after  others  of  thp 

KSmTofS'S,r'"*- “ 

‘The^/SL?  worship,  has  this  remarkable  passage: 

caJJccSra?/he  Prophets,  5e 

_ _ in^  as  the  time  allows :  and,  when  the  reader  has  ended, 

«mn!y  a™f",rt!!.'n°'’“‘'™  “f  «l-e«  two  writers  in 

I  ih  ™riiSii°'-  ’■  ■’■ 1  S' 

’Tlb.vol.iii.p.m  !.  V  vof  iv.  p.  644. 


94 


Paley's  View  of  the' 


the  president  makes  a  discourse,  exhorting  to  the  imitation  of  so  ex 

few's’ observations  will  show  the  value  of  this  testimony. 

1  The  ‘Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,’  Justin  in  another  place  ex- 
mLwiBurar  Ahal  are  ebled  ■  Gospels and  that  they  were 
the  Gospels  which  we  now  use,  is  made  certain  by  Justin  s  numer- 

oas  quofations  of  (/.£»,  and  his  silence  ^^urch. 

9  Tiistin  describes  the  general  usage  oi  the  Christian  cnuriu 
I  Sn  does  not  speak  of  it  as  recent  or  newly  tnstituted,  but  m 

the  Divine  Scriptures  ;  we  nourish  our  faith,  raise  our  hope,  con 

EuseCsh'eSl'oFor^^^  cites  for  his  authority  the 

Soptrf‘'thh1onnl!ry‘!rdLo" 

nubliclv  in  the  church,  though  he  was  not  yet  ordained 

tert  T'his  anecdote  recognizes  the  usage  not  only  of 

is  a  still  more  ample  testimony,  many  homilies  ol  upon 
Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  delivered  by  him  in  the  ass 

“iv°Cypr,t“  ™emy  years  lower  than  that  of 

Origen,  gives  his  people^an  account  of  having  ordained  peisons, 
S  wefe  beforehonfessors  to  be  readers;  »"d  ^  "f” 

HgiiSiHisp 

V.'intimations  of  the  ime  custom  may  „f  the 

berof  writers  in  the  begmntng  and  *rpughont  the  whole  ol  he 
fourth  century.  Of  these  testimonies  I  will  onxy  use  one,  as  oen  g 

of  itself,  express  and  full.  Augustine,  W^chriS^ 
elusion  of  the  century,  displays  the  benefit  of  the  Chnstoyeligi^^^ 

on  this  very  account,  the  public  reading  o  o^rts^of  people  of 
churches,  ‘  where  (says  he)  is  a  confluence  o  " 

both  sexes ;  and  where  they  hear  how  J  i  eternally  h 

this  world,  that  they  may  deserve  to  live  happily  an _  Y 


*  Lardnev.  Cred.  vol.  i.  p.  273. 
:}  Ib.  vol.  iii  p.  68. 

IJ  Ib.  vol.  iv.  p.  842. 


■\  Ib.  vol.  ii.  p.  628. 
§  lb.  vol.  iii.  P-  302. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  95 

another.’  And  this  custom  he  declares  to  be  universal:  ‘The 
canonical  books  of  Scripture  being  read  everywhere,  the  miracles 
therein  recorded  are  well  known  to  all  people.’* 

It  does  not  appear  that  any  books,  other  than  our  present  Scrip¬ 
tures,  were  thus  publicly  read,  except  that  the  epistle  of  Clement 
was  read  in  the  church  of  Corinth  to  which  it  had  been  addressed, 
and  some  in  others :  and  that  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  was  read  in 
many  churches.  Nor  does  it  subtract  much  from  the  value  of  the 
argument,  that  these  two  writings  partly  come  within  it,  because 
we  allow  them  to  be  the  genuine  writings  of  apostolical  men. 
There  is  not  the  least  evidence,  that  any  other  Gospel,  than  the 
four  which  we  receive,  was  ever  admitted  to  this  distinction. 


SECT.  VI. 

Commentaries  were  ancienfy  written  upon  the  Scriptures  ;  harmonies 
formed  out  of  them  ;  different  copies  carefully  collected ;  and  ver¬ 
sions  made  of  them  into  different  languages. 

No  greater  proof  can  be  given  of  the  esteem  in  which  these 
books  were  holden  by  the  ancient  Christians,  or  of  the  sense  they 
entertained  of  their  value  and  importance,  than  the  industry 
bestowed  upon  them.  And  it  ought  to  be  observed,  that  the  value 
and  importance  of  these  books  consisted  entirely  in  their  genuine¬ 
ness  and  tratli.  There  was  nothing  in  them,  as  works  of  taste,  or 
as  compositions,  which  could  have  induced  any  one  to  have  written 
a  note  upon  them.  Moreover  it  shows  that  they  were  even  then 
considered  Us  ancient  books.  Men  do  not  write  comments  upon 
publications  of  their  own  times;  therefore  the  testimonies  cited 
under  this  head  afford  an  evidence  which  carries  up  the  evangelic 
writings  much  beyond  the  age  of  the  testimonies  themselves,  and 
to  that  of  their  reputed  authors. 

I.  Tatian,  a  follow'er  of  Justin  Martyr,  and  who  flourished  about 
the  year  170,  composed  a  harmony,  or  collation  of  the  Gospels, 
which  he  called  Diatessaron,  Of  the  four.t  The  tide,  as  well  as 
the  work,  is  remarkable ;  because  it  shows  that  then,  as  now,  there 
were  four,  and  only  four,  Gospels  in  general  use  with  Christians. 
And  this  w^as  little  more  than  a  hundred  years  after  the  publication 
M  some  of  them. 

II.  Pantenus,  of  the  Alexandrian  school,  a  man  of  great  reputa¬ 
tion  and  learning,  who  came  twenty  years  after  Tatian,  wrote 
many  commentaries  upon  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which,  as  Jerome 
estifies,  were  extant  in  his  time.t 

III.  Clement  of  Alexandria  wrote  short  explications  of  many 
woks  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament.5 


‘  Lardner,  Cred.  vol.  x.  p.  276,  &c. 
1  Ib.  p.  455. 


t  Ib.  vol.  i.  p.  307. 

§  Ib.  vol.  ii,  p.  462. 


96 


Paleifs  View  of  the 


IV.  Tertullian  appeals  from  the  authority  of  a  later  version,  then 

in  use,  to  the  authentic  Greek.*  _ 

V.  An  anonymous  author,  quoted  by  Eusebius,  and  who  appears 
to  have  written  about  the  year  212,  appeals  to  the  ancient 

the  Scriptures  in  refutation  of  some  corrupt  readings  alleged  by  the 

followers  of  Artemon.t  „ 

VI.  The  same  Eusebius,  mentioning  by  name  several  wnters  oi 
the  church  who  lived  at  this  t’me,  and  concerning  whom  he  says, 
‘There  still  remain  divers  monuments  of  the  laudable  industry  ot 
those  ancient  and  ecclesiastical  men’  {Le.  of  Christiim  viriters  w^  o 
were  considered  as  ancient  in  the  year  300j,  adds,  ‘  There  are,  e- 
sides,  treatises  of  many  others,  whose  names  w'e  have  not  been  ab  e 
to  learn,  orthodox  and  ecclesiastical  men,  as  the  interpretations  ot 
the  Divine  Scriptures  given  by  each  of  them  show-t 

VII.  The  last  five  testimonies  may  be  referred  to  the  year  zoo ; 
immediately  after  which,  a  period  of  thirty  years  gives  us 

Julius  Africanus,  who  wrote  an  epistle  upon  the  apparent  ditter- 
ence  in  the  genealogies  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  which  he  endeavors 
to  reconcile  by  the  distinction  of  natural  and  legal  descent,  and 
conducts  his  hypothesis  with  great  industry  through  the  whole  se¬ 
ries  of  generations.^  m  n  n 

Ammonius,  a  learned  Alexandrian,  who  composed,  as  1  adan  naa 
done,  a  harmony  of  the  four  Gospels;  which  proves,  as  TatianS' 
work  did,  that  there  were  four  Gospels,  and  no  more,  at  this  tme, 
in  use  in  the  church.  It  affords  also  an  instance  of  the  zeal  ot 
Christians  for  those  writings,  and  of  their  solicitude  about  themjl 
And,  above  both  these,  Origen,  who  wrote  commentaries,  or  hom¬ 
ilies,  upon  most  of  the  books  included  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
upon  no  other  books  but  these.  In  particular,  he  wrote  upon  teamt 
John’s  Gospel,  very  largely  upon  Saint  Mathew’s,  and  commenta¬ 
ries,  or  homilies,  upon  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.^ 

VIII.  In  addition  to  these  the  third  century  likewise  contains 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  a  very  learned  man,  who  cornpared 
with  great  accuracy,  the  accounts  in  the  four  Gospels  of  tne  time  ot 
Christ’s  resurrection,  adding  a  reflection  which  showed  his  opinion 
of  their  authority :  ‘  Let  us  not  think  that  the  evangelists  disagree 
or  contradict  each  other,  although  there  be  some  small  difference 
but  let  us  honestly  and  faithfully  endeavor  to  reconcile  what  w€ 


*  Lardner,  Cred.  vol.  ii.  p.  638. 
t  Ib.  vot.  ii.  p.  551. 


t  Ib.  vol.  iii.  p.  46. 

S  Ib.  vol.  iii.  p.  170. 

IT  Ib.  p.  352.  192. 202.  245. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  97 

TX.  The  fourth  century  supplies  a  catalogue^  of  fourteen  writers, 
who  expended  their  labors  upon  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
and  whose  works  or  names  are  come  down  to  our  times :  amono-st 
which  number  It  may  be  sufficient,  for  the  purpose  of  showirio-  tlie 
sentinients  and  studies  of  learned  Christians  of  that  age,  to  notice 
the  lollowing ;  o  ; 

Eusebius,  m  the  very  beginning  of  the  century,  wrote  expressly 
upon  the  discrepancies  observable  in  the  Gospel's,  and  likewise  a 
treatise,  m  which  he  pointed  out  what  things  are  related  by  four 
what  by  three,  what  by  two,  and  what  by  one  evangelist.t  This 
author  also  testifies,  what  is  certainly  a  material  piece  of  evidence 
‘that  the  writings  of  the  apostles  had  obtained  such  an  esteem,  as  to 
.every  language  both  of  Greeks  and  Barbarians, 
and  to  be  diligently  studied  by  all  nations.’!  This  testimony  was 
gi\en  about  the  year  300;  how  long  before  that  date  these  transla¬ 
tions  were  made  does  not  appear; 

Darnasus,  bishop  of  Rome,  corresponded  with  Saint  Jerome  upon 
the  exposition  of  difficult  texts  of  Scripture :  and,  in  a  letter  still  re¬ 
maining,  desires  Jerome  to  give  him  a  clear  explanation  of  the  word 
Hosanna,  found  in  the  New  Testament;  ‘he  (Damasus)  having  met 
with  very  different  interpretations  of  it  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  com¬ 
mentaries  of  Catholic  writers  which  he  had  read.’$  This  last  clause 
shows  the  number  and  variety  of  commentaries  then  extant. 

Cf  of  Nyssen,  at  one  time,  appeals  to  the  most  exact  copies  of 

bt.  Mark  s  Gospel;  at  another  time,  compares  together,  and  proposes 
to  re^ncile,  the  several  accounts  of  the  resurrection  gzuen  by  the 
Jour  fvangehsts ;  which  limitation  proves,  that  there  were  no  other 
histones  of  Christ  deemed  authentic  beside  these,  or  included  in 
the  same  character  with  these.  Tliis  writer  observes,  acutely 
enough,  that  the  disposition  of  the  clothes  in  the  sepulchre,  the 
napkin  that  was  about  our  Saviour’s  head,  not  lying  with  the  linen 
clothes,  but  wrapped  together  in  a  place  by  itself,  did  not  bespeak 
the  terror  and  hurry  of  thieves,  and  therefore  refutes  the  story  of 
the  body  being  stolen.il 

Ambrose,  bishop  of  Milan,  remarked  various  readings  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  appeals  to  the  original 

And  Jerome,  tow^ards  the  conclusion  of  this  century,  put  forth  an 
edmon  of  the  New'  Testament  in  Latin,  corrected,  at  least  as  to  the 
ijospels,  by  Greek  copies,  ‘and  those  (he  says)  ancient.’ 

*  Eusebius,  A.  D.  ,  .  .  315 

Juvencus,  Spain  .  .  ,  330 

Tlieodore,  Thrace  .  .  .  334 
Hilary,  Poictiers  .  .  .  3.54 

Fortunatus . 34O 

Apollinariusof  Laodicea  362 
Damasus,  Rome  .  .  .  366 

Gregory,  Nyssen  .  .  .  374 

t  Lardner,  Cred.  vol.  viii.  p.46. 

§Ib.  vol.  ix.  p.  108. 


Didimus  of  Alexandria 
Ambrose  of  Milan  . 
Diodore  of  Tarsus  . 
Gaiident  of  Brescia 
Theodore  of  Cilicia 

Jerome . 

Chrysostom  .  .  . 

t  Ib.  p.  201. 
II  Ib.  p.  163. 


370 

374 

378 

387 

304 

392 

398 


98  Paleifs  View  of  the 

Lastly,  Chrysostom,  it  is  well  known,  delivered  and  published  a 
great  many  homilies,  or  sermons,  upon  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of 

the  Apostles.  i.  •  •  r  • 

It  is  needless  to  bring  down  this  article  lower ;  but  it  is  ot  im¬ 
portance  to  add,  that  there  is  no  example  of  Christian  writers  of  the 
first  three  centuries  composing  comments  upon  any  other  books  than 
those  which  are  found  in  the  New  Testament,  except  the  single  one 
of  Clement  of  Alexandria  commenting  upon  a  book  called  the 
Revelation  of  Peter. 

Of  the  ancient  versions  of  the  New  Testament,  one  of  the  most 
valuable  is  the  Syriac.  Syriac  was  the  language  of  Palestine  when 
Christianity  was  there  first  established.  And  although  the  books  of 
Scripture  were  written  in  Greek,  for  the  purpose  of  a  more  extended 
circulation  than  within  the  precincts  of  Judea,  yet,  it  is  probable 
that  they  would  soon  be  translated  into  the  vulgar  language  of  the 
country  where  the  religion  first  prevailed.  Accordingly,  a  Syriac 
translation  is  now  extant,  all  along,  so  far  as  it  appears,  used  by  the 
inhabitants  of  Syria,  bearing  many  internal  marks  of  high  antiquity, 
supported  in  its  pretensions  by  the  uniform  traditions  of  the  east, 
and  confirmed  by  the  discovery  of  many  very  ancient  manuscripts 
in  the  libraries  of  Europe.  It  is  about  two  hundred  years  since  a 
bishop  of  Antioch  sent  a  copy  of  this  translation  into  Europe,  to  be 
printed ;  and  this  seems  to  be  the  first  time  that  the  translation  be¬ 
came  generally  known  to  these  parts  of  the  world.  The  bishop  of 
Antioch’s  Testament  was  found  to  contaiii  all  our  books,  except  the 
second  epistle  of  Peter,  the  second  and  third  of  John,  and  the  Reve¬ 
lation  ;  which  books,  however,  have  since  been  discovered  in  that 
language  in  some  ancient  manuscripts  of  Europe.  But  in  this  col¬ 
lection,  no  other  book,  beside  what  is  in  ours,  appears  ever  to  have 
had  a  place.  And,  which  is  worthy  of  observation,  the  texf  though 
preserved  in  a  remote  country,  and  without  communication  with 
ours,  differs  from  ours  very  little,  and  in  nothing  that  is  important* 


SECT.  VII. 

Our  Scriptures  were  received  hy  ancient  Christians  of  different  sects 
and  persuasions,  by  many  heretics  as  well  as  Catholics,  and  were 
usually  appealed  to  hy  both  sides  in  the  controversies  which  arose  in 
those  days. 

The  three  most  ancient  topics  of  controversy  amongst  Christians, 
were,  the  authority  of  the  Jewish  constitution,  the  origin  of  evil, 
and  the  nature  of  Christ.  Upon  the  first  of  these  we  find,  in  very 
early  times,  one  class  of  heretics  rejecting  the  Old  Testament  en¬ 
tirely  ;  another  contending  for  the  obligation  of  its  law,  in  all  its 
parts,  throughout  its  whole  extent,  and  over  every  one  who  sought 
acceptance  with  God.  Upon  the  two  latter  subjects,  a  natural,  per- 


*  Jones  on  the  Canon,  vol.  i.  c.  24. 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 


99 


haps,  and  venial,  but  a  fruitless,  eager,  and  impatient  cnriosity, 
prompted  by  the  philosophy  and  by  the  scholastic  habits  of  the  age 
which  carried  men  much  into  bold  hypotheses  and  conjectural  solu¬ 
tions,  raised,  amongst  some  who  professed  Christianity,  very  wild 
and  unfounded  opinions.  I  think  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
the  number  of  these  bore  any  considerable  proportion  to  the  body 
of  the  Christian  church;  and  amidst  the  disputes  which  such 
opinions  necessarily  occasioned,  it  is  a  great  satisfaction  to  perceive, 
what,  in  a  vast  plurality  of  instances,  we  do  perceive,  all  sides  re¬ 
curring  to  the  same  Scriptures. 

=^1.  Basilides  lived  near  the  age  of  the  apostles,  about  the  year 
120,  or,  perhaps,  sooner.t  He  rejected  the  Jewish  institution,  not  as 
spurious,  but  as  proceeding  from  a  being  inferior  to  the  true  God ; 
and  in  other  respects  advanced  a  scheme  of  theology  widely  dif^ 
ferent  from  the  general  doctrine  of  the  Christian  church,  and  which, 
as  it  gained  over  some  disciples,  wasSvarmly  opposed  by  Christian 
WTiters  of  the  second  and  third  century.  In  these  writings,  there  is 
positive  evidence  that  Basilides  received  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  ; 
and  there  is  no  sufficient  proof  that  he  rejected  any  of  the  other 
three :  on  the  contraiy,  it  appears  that  he  wrote  a  commentaiy  upon 
the  Gospel,  so  copious  as  to  be  divided  into  twenty-four  books-l 

II.  The  Valentinians  appeared  about  the  same  time.$  Their 
heresy  consisted  in  certain  notions  concerning  angelic  natures,  which 
can  hardly  be  rendered  intelligible  to  a  modern  reader.  They  seem, 
however,  to  have  acquired  as  much  importance  as  any  of  the  sepa- 
rati^  of  that  early  age.  Of  this  sect,  Irenaeus,  who  wrote,  A.  n. 
172',  expressly  records  that  they  endeavored  to  fetch  arguments  for 
their  opinions  from  the  evangelic  and  apostolic  writings.il  Herac- 
leon,  one  of  the  most  celebrated  of  the  sect,  and  who  lived  probably 
so  early  as  the  year  125,  wrote  commentaries  upon  Luke  and  John.lT 
Some  observations  also  of  his  upon  Matthew  are  preserved  by 
Origen.* **  Nor  is  there  any  reason  to  doubt  that  he  received  the 
whole  New  Testament. 

III.  The  Carpocratians  were  also  an  early  heresy,  little,  if  at  all. 
later  than  the  two  preceding. ti'  Some  of  their  opinions  resembled 
what  w'e  at  this  day  mean  by  Socinianism.  With  respect  to  the 
Scriptures,  they  are  specifically  charged,  by  Irenseus  and  by  Epi- 
phanius,  with  endeavoring  to  pervert  a  passage  in  Matthew,  which 
amounts  to  a  positive  proof  that  they  received  that  Gospel.fl:  Nega¬ 
tively,  they  are  not  accused,  by  their  adversaries,  of  rejecting  any 
part  of  the  New  Testament. 


*  The  materials  of  the  former  part  of-this  section  are  taken  from  Dr. 

Lardncr's  History  of  the  Heretics,  of  the  first  two  Cejituries,  published 
since  his  death,  with  additions,  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hogg,  of  Exeter,  and  in 
serted  into  the  ninth  volume  of  his  works,  of  the  edition  of  1778. 


t  Lardner,  vol  ix.  ed.  1788,  p,  271. 
§Ib.  p.  350,  351. 

IT  Ib.  vol.  ix.  ed.  1788,  p.  352. 
tt  Ib.  309. 


**  Ib.  p.  353. 
tt  Ib.  318, 


100  Paley  s  View  of  the 

IV.  The  Sethians,  a.  d.  150  the  Montanists,  A.  D.  156  ;t  the 
Marcosians,  a.  I).  160  ;t  Hermogenes,  a.  d.  180  Praxias,  a.  d. 
Artemon,  a.  d.  200  ;ir  Theodotus,  A.  d.  200 ;  all  included  under  the 
denomination  of  heretics,  and  all  engaged  in  controversies  with 
Catholic  Christians,  received  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment. 

V.  Tatian,  who  lived  in  the  year  172,  went  into  many  extrava¬ 
gant  opinions,  was  the  founder  of  a  sect  called  Encratites,  and  was 
deeply  involved  in  disputes  with  the  Christians  of  that  age ;  yet 
Tatian  so  received  the  four  Gospels  as  to  compose  a  harmony  from 
them. 

VI.  From  a  writer,  quoted  by  Eusebius,  of  about  the  year  oOO,  it 
is  apparent  that  th^y  who  at  that  time  contended  for  the  mere  hu¬ 
manity  of  Christ,  argued  from  the  Scriptures ;  for  they  are  accused 
by  this  writer,  of  making  alterations  in  their  copies,  in  order  to  favor 

their  opinions.* **  •  i  •  i, 

VII.  Origen’s  sentiments  excited  great  controversies, — the  bishops 
of  Rome  and  Alexandria,  and  many  others,  condemning,  the  bishops 
of  the  east  espousing  them;  yet  there  is  not  the  smallest  question, 
but  that  both  the  advocates  and  adversaries  of  these  opinions  a(> 
knowledged  the  same  authority  of  Scripture.  In  his  time,  which 
the  reader  will  remember  was  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  years 
after  the  Scriptures  were  published,  many  dissensions  subsisted 
amongst  Christians,  wdth  which  they  were  reproached  by  Celsus , 
yet  Origen,  who  has  recorded  this  accusation  without  contradicting 
it,  nevertheless  testifies,  that  the  four  Gospels  were  received  with¬ 
out  dispute,  by  the  w'hole  church  of  God  under  heaven.tt 

VIII.  Paul  of  Samosata,  about  thirty  years  after  Origen,  so  distin¬ 
guished  himself  in  the  controversy  concerning  the  nature  of  Christ, 
as  to  be  the  subject  of  two  councils  or  synods,  assembled  at  Antioch 
upon  his  opinions.  Yet  he  is  not  charged  Iw  his  adversaries  vyith 
rejecting  any  book  of  the  New  Testament.  On  the  contrary,  Epiph- 
anius,  who  wrote  a  history  of  heretics  a  hundred  years  afterward, 
says,  that  Paul  endeavored  to  support  his  doctrine  by  texts  of  Scrip¬ 
ture.  And  Vincentius  Lirinensis,  a.  d.  434,  speaking  of  Paul  and 
other  heretics  of  the  same  age,  has  these  words :  ‘  Here,  perhaps,- 
some  one  may  ask,  whether  heretics  also  urge  the  testimony  of 
Scripture.  They  urge  it  indeed,  explicitly  and  vehemently  for 
you  may  see  them  flying  through  every  book  of  the  sacred  law.’H 

IX.  A  controversy  at  the  same  time  existed  with  the  Noetians  or 
Sabellians,  who  seem  to  have  gone  into  the  opposite  extreme  from 

hat  of  Paul  of  Samosata  and  his  followers.  Yet,  according  to  the 
xpress  testimony  of  Epiphanius,  Sabellius  received  all  the  Scrip¬ 
tures.  And  with  both  sects  Catholic  writers  constantly  allege  the 


*  Lardner,  vol.  ix.  ed.  1788,  p.  455. 
X  Ib.  348. 

II  Ib.  433. 

**  Ib.  vol.  iii.  p  46. 

Ib.  vol.  xi.  p.  158. 


t  Ib.  482. 

§  Ib.  4:3. 

IT  Ib.  466. 

tt  Ib.  vol.  iv.  p.  642. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  101 

^riptures,  and  reply  to  the  arguments  which  their  opponents  drew 
from  particular  texts. 

We  have  here,  therefore,  a  proof,  that  parties,  wdio  were  the  most 
opposite  and  irreconcilable  to  one  another,  acknowledged  the  au¬ 
thority  of  Scripture  with  equal  deference. 

^  general  testimony  to  the  same  point,  may  be  pro¬ 
duced  what  was  said  by  one  of  the  bishops  of  the  council  of  Car- 
holden  a  little  before  this  time,—*  I  am  of  opinion 
that  the  blasphemous  and  wicked  heretics,  who  pervert  the  sacred 
and  adorable  words  of  the  Scriptures,  should  be  execrated.’*  Un¬ 
doubtedly  what  they  perverted  they  received. 

VI.  The  Millennium,  Novatianism,  the  baptism  of  heretics,  the 
keeping  of  Easter,  engaged  also  the  attention  and  divided  the  opin- 
lons  of  Christians,  at  and  before  that  time  (and,  by  the  way,  it  may 
be  observed,  that  such  disputes,  though  on  some  accounts  to  be 
plained,  showed  how  much  men  were  in  earnest  upon  the  subject) : 
yet  every  oim  appealed  for  the  grounds  of  his  opinion  to  Scripture 
authority.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  who  flourished  a.  d.  247,  de¬ 
scribing  a  conference  or  public  disputation  with  the  Millennarians 
^  confesses  of  them,  though  their  adversary,  *  that  they  em- 

wace  whatever  could  be  made  out  by  good  arguments  from  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  t  Novatus,  a.  b.  251,  distinguished  by  some  rigid 
sentiments  concerning  the  reception  of  those  who  had  lapsed,  and 
me  munder  of  a  numerous  sect,  in  his  few  remaining  works  quotes 
me  Cospel  with  the  same  respect  as  other  Christians  did ;  and  con¬ 
cerning  his  followers,  the  testimony  of  Socrates,  who  wrote  about 
me  year  440,  is  positive,  viz.  ‘That  in  the  disputes  between  the 
uamolics  and  them,  each  side  endeavored  to  support  itself  by  the 
aulhonty  of  the  Divine  Scriptures. 

Th®  Donatists,  who  sprung  up  in  the  year  328,  used  the 
same  Scriptures  as  we  do.  *  Produce  (saith  Augustine)  some  proof 
whose  authority  is  common  to  us  both.’§ 

H.  It  IS  perfectly  notorious  tliat,  in  the  Arian  controversy, 
which  arose  soon  after  the  year  300,  both  sides  appealed  to  the 
^me  Scriptures,  and  with  equal  professions  of  deference  and  regard. 

,  .f  Arians,  m  their  council  of  Antioch,  a.  d.  341,  pronounce,  that, 

}  contrary  to  the  sound  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  say, 

lat  the  ^n  is  a  creature,  as  one  of  the  creatures,  let  him  be  an 
anathema.’ll  They  and  the  Athanasians  mutually  accuse  each  other 
Of  using  unscriptural  phrases ;  which  was  a  mutual  acknowledg¬ 
ment  of  the  conclusive  authority  of  Scripture. 

XIV.  The  Priscillianists,  a.  d.  378,V  the  Pelagians,  a.  d.  405,**  re¬ 
ceived  the  same  Scriptures  as  we  do. 

XV.  The  testimony  of  Chrysostom,  w’ho  lived  near  the  year  400, 

IS  so  positive  in  affirmation  of  the  proposition  which  we  maintain, 


*  Lardner,  vol.  xi.  p.  839. 
1  Ib.  vol.  v.  p.  105. 
i  Ib.  p.  277. 

**  Jb.  vol.  xi.  p.  52. 


t  Ib.  vol.  iv.  p.  666. 
§  Ib.  vol.  vii.  p.  243. 
IT  Ib.  vol.  ix.  p.  325. 


I  2 


102 


Paley^s  View  of  the 


that  it  may  form  a  proper  conclusion  of  the  argument.  ‘  The  gene¬ 
ral  reception  of  the  Gospels  is  a  proof  that  their  history  is  true  and 
consistent ;  for,  since  the  writings  of  the  Gospels,  many  heresies 
have  arisen,  holding  opinions  contrary  to  what  is  contained  in  them, 
who  yet  received  the  Gospels  either  entire  or  m  part.  I  ^m  not 
moved  by  what  may  seem  a  deduction  from  Chrysostom  s  testimony, 
the  words,  ‘  entire  or  in  part;’  for,  if  all  the  parts, 
questioned  in  our  Gospels,  were  given  up,  it  would  not  affect  the 
miraculous  origin  of  the  religion  in  the  smallest  degree :  e.g. 

Cerinthus  is  said  by  Epiphanius  to  have  received  the  Gospel  ot 
Matthew,  but  not  entire.  What  the  omissions  were,  does  not  a^ 
pear.  The  common  opinion,  that  he  rejected  the  first  two  chaptere, 
seems  to  have  been  a  mistake.t  It  is  aped,  howpr,  by  all  who 
have  aiven  any  account  of  Cerinthus,  that  he  taught  that  the  ply 
Ghost  (whether  he  meant  by  that  name  a  person  or  a  power)  de¬ 
scended  upon  Jesus  at  his  baptism;  that-  Jesus  from  this  time  per¬ 
formed  many  miracles,  and  that  he  appeared  after  his  dea  . 
must  have  retained  therefore  the  essential  parts  of  the  history. 

Of  all  the  ancient  heretics,  the  most  extraordinary  was  Marcion.J 
One  of  his  tenets  was  the  rejection  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  pro¬ 
ceeding  from  an  inferior  and  imperfect  deity :  and  in  pursuance  ot 
this  hypothesis  he  erased  from  the  New,  and  that,  as  it  should  seem, 
without  entering  into  any  critical  reasons,  every  passage  which  re¬ 
cognized  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  He  spared  not  a  text  which  con¬ 
tradicted  his  opinion.  It  is  reasonable  to  believe  that  Marcion 
treated  books  as  he  treated  texts;  yet  this  rash  and  vvild  controver¬ 
sialist  published  a  recension,  or  chastised  edition,  ol  Saint  l^uhe  s 
Gospel,  containing  the  leading  facts,  and  allwhich  is  ssary  ^ 
authenticate  the  religion.  This  example  affords  proof,  that  there 
were  always  some  points,  and  those  the  mam  points,  whicm  neither 
wildness  nor  rashness,  neither  the  fury  of  op^sition  nor  the  intem¬ 
perance  of  controversy,  would  venture  to  call  in  quespn.  there 
is  no  reason  to  believe  that  Marcion,  though  full  of  resenmpt 
against  the  Gatholic  Christians,  ever  charged  them  with  forges 
their  books.  ‘  The  Gospel  of  Saint  Matthew,  the  Epistle  to  the 
brews,  with  those  of  Saint  Peter  and  Saint  James,  as  well  as  the 
Old  Testament  in  general  (he  said),  were  writings  not  for  Chrishans 
but  for  Jews.’§  This  declaration  shows  the  ground  upon  lyhich 
Marcion  proceeded  in  his  mutilation  of  the  Scnptures,  viz.  his  dis¬ 
like  of  the  passages  or  the  books.  Marcion  flourished  about  the  year 

130.  .  ,  •  .  j  r  • 

Dr.  Lardner,  in  his  general  Review,  sums  up  this  heim  or  evi¬ 
dence  in  the  following  words.  ‘Noetus,  Paul  of  Samosata,  babelhus. 


*  Lardner,  vol.  x.  p.  316.  t  R*.  vol.  ix.  ed.  1788,  p.  32». 

t  Ib.  sect.  ii.  c.  x.  Also  Michael,  vol.i.  c.  i.  sect,  xviii.  • 

S  I  have  transcribed  this  sentence  from  Michaelis  (p.  38),  who  has  no  , 
however,  referred  to  the  authority  upon  which  he  attributes  these  words 
to  Marcion. 


I 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  103 

Marcellus,  Photinus,  the  Novatians,  Donatists,  Manicheans Priscil- 
Jianists,  beside  Artemon,  the  Audians,  the  Arians,  and  divers  others 

®  of  ^he  New  Testament 

which  the  Catholics  received  ;  and  agreed  in  a  like  respect  for  them 
as  written  by  apostles,  or  their  disciples  and  companions. ’+ 


"  SECT.  VIII. 

The  four  G^pels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  thirteen  Epistles  of  Saint 
ram,  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  and  the  First  of  Peter,  were  received 
without  doubt  by  those  who  doubted  concerning  the  other  boohs  which 
are  included  in  our  present  canon. 


I  STATE  this  poposition,  because,  if  made  out,  it  shows  that  the 
authenticity  of  their  books  was  a  subject  amongst  the  early  Chris¬ 
tians  of  consideration  and  inquiry;  and  that,  where  there  was  cause 
ot  doubt,  they  did  doubt;  a  circumstance  which  strengthens  verv 
much  their  testimony  to  such  books  as  were  received  by  them  with 
hill  acquiescence. 

L  Jerome,  in  his  accqunt  of  Caius,  who  was  probably  a  presbyter 
ot  Kome,  and  who  flourished  near  the  year  200,  records  of  him,  that 
reckoning  up  only  thirteen  epistles  of  Paul,  he  says  the  fourteenth, 
which  IS  inscnbed  to  the  Hebrews,  is  not  his  :  and  then  Jerome  adds. 
With  the  Komans  to  this  day  it  is  not  looked  upon  as  Paul’s.’  This 
agrees  in  the  mam  with  the  account'given  by  Eusebius  of  the  same 
ancient  author  and  his  work ;  except  that  Eusebius  delivers  his  cwn 
remark  in  more  guarded  terms:  ‘And  indeed  to  this  very  time  by 
srnne  oi  the  Romans,  this  epistle  is  not  thought  to  be  the  apostle’s.’f 
,  ff •  Crigen,  about  twenty  years  after  Caius,  quoting  the  Epistle  to 
e  Hebrews,  observes  that  some  might  dispute  the  authority  of  that 
epistle ;  and  therefore  proceeds  to  quote  to  the  same  point,  as  un- 
doubted  books  of  Scripture,  the  Gospel  of  Saint  Matthew,  the  Acts 
9  he  Apostles,  and  Paul’s  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians.§  And 
in  anothm  place,  tliis  apthor  speaks  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
us .  ‘  The  account  come  down  to  us  is  various ;  some  sapng  that 
Uemenr,  who  was  bishop  of  Rome,  wrote  this  epistle;  others,  that 
It  was  Luke,  the  same  who  wrote  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts.’  Speak¬ 
ing  also,  in  the  saine  paragraph,  of  Peter,  ‘  Peter  (says  he)  has  left 
one  epistle,  acknowledged ;  let  it  be  granted  likewise  that  he  wrote 
a  second,  for  it  is  doubted  of’  And  of  John,  ‘  He  has  also  left  one 
epistle,  of  a  very  few  lines ;  grant  also  a  second  and  a  third,  for  all 
do  not  allow  them  to  be  genuine.’  Now  let  it  be  noted,  that  Origen, 
WHO  thus  discriminates,  and  thus  confesses  his  own  doubts,  and  the 


lat*  as  theyear^^r^^^  exception,  however,  of  Faustus,  who  lived  so 

Lardner’s  future  inquiries  supplied  him 

vviin  many  other  instances, 
t  Lardner,  vol.  iii.  p.  240. 


§  Ib.  p.  246. 


104 


Paletfs  View  of  the 


doubts  which  subsisted  in  his  time,  expressly  witnesses  conceming 
the  four  Gospels,  ‘  that  they  alone  are  received  without  dispute  by 
the  whole  church  of  God  under  heaven. 

III.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  in  the  year  247,  doi^ts  conceming 

the  book  of  Revelation,  whether  it  was  written  by  Saint  John, 
states  the  o-rounds  of  his  doubt,  represents  the  diversity  of  opinion 
concemml  it  in  his  own  time,  and  before  his  time.t  Yet  the  same 
Dionysius  nses  and  collates  the  four  Gospels  tn  a  manner  whteh 
shows  that  he  entertained  not  the  smallest  suspicion  of  t/teir  au¬ 
thority,  and  in  a  manner  also  which  shov^  that  they,  and  t  ey  a  o  , 
were  received  as  authentic  histories  of  Christ.!  _  , 

IV.  But  this  section  may  be  said  to  have  been  framed  on  purpose 
to  introduce  to  the  reader  two  remarkable  passages  extant  in  Guse- 
bius’s  Ecclesiastical  History.  The  first  passage  opens  with  tliese 
words ‘  Let  us  observe  the  writings  of  the  apostle  John  which  are 
unconlradicted  ;  and  first  of  all  must  be  mentioned,  as  acknow  edged 
of  all,  the  Gospel  according  to  him,  well  known  to  all  the  churches 
under  heaven.’  The  author  then  proceeds  to 

writing  the  Gosnels,  and  the  reason  for  placing  Saint  John  s  the  last, 
manifestly  speaking  of  all  the  four  as  parallel  in  their  authority,  and 
in  the  certainty  of  their  original.^  The  second  passage  is  taken 
from  a  chapter,  the  title  of  which  is,  ‘Of  tha Scriptures  universally 
acknowledged,  and  of  those  that  are  not  such.  Eusebius  begins  his 
enumeration  in  the  following  m^naev:-‘ In  the  first  place  to  be 
ranked  the  sacred  four  Gospels ;  then  the  book  of  the  Acts  of  he 
Apostles;  after  that  are  to  be  reckoned  the  ppistles  of  Paul.  In  the 
next  place,  that  called  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  and  the  Epistle  of 
Peter,  are  to  be  esteemed  authentic.  After  this  is  to  be  placed,  if  it 
be  thought  fit,  the  Revelation  of  John,  about  which  we  shall  observe 
the  different  opinions  at  proper  seasons.  Of  the  oonhoyerted,  but 
vet  well  known  or  approved  by  the  most,  are,  Aat  cahed  the  Epist 
iif  James,  and  that  of  Jude,  and  the  Second  of  Peter,  and  the  Second 
and  Third  of  John,  whether  they  are  w'ritten  by  the  evangelist,  or 
another  of  the  same  name.’ll  He  then  proceeds  to  reckon  up  five 
others,  not  in  our  canon,  which  he  calls  in  one  place  spurious,  m 
another  controverted,  meaning,  as  appears  to  me,  nearly  the  same 

thing  by  these  two  words.V  ,  t-  r^  ^  i  +1,  a  /.fe¬ 

lt  is  manifest  from  this  passage,  that  the  four  Gospels,  and  the  Acts 
of  the  Vpostles  (the  parts  of  Scripture  with  which  our  concern 
cipally  lies),  wgre  acknowledged  without  dispute,  even  by  those 
who  raised  objections,  or  entertained  doubts,  about  some  other  parts 


*  Lavdner,  vol.  ii.  p.  234.  . . .  J  Jb-  yoy  v.  p.  670. 

t  Ib  p.  661.  §  Ib.  vol.  vni.  p.  90.  ||  Ib.  p.  39. 

IFThL  Eusebius  could  not  intend,  by  the  word  ’ 

what  we  at  present  mean  by  it,  is  evident  from  a  clause  111  ^bis  very  chap 
ter  where  speaking  of  the  Gospels  of  Peter,  and  Thomas,  and  Matthias 
Ind  some  others,  he  says,  ‘  They  are  not  s'?  Je  recko^^ 

the  spurious,  but  are  to  be  rejected  as  altogether  absurd  and  impious, 

Vol.  viii.  p.  98. 


105 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

of  the  same  collection.  But  the  passage  proves  something  more 
than  this.  The  author  was  extremely  conversant  in  the  writings  of 
Christians,  which  had  been  published  from  the  commencement  of 
the  institution  to  his  own  time :  and  it  was  from  these  writings  that 
he  drew  his  knowledge  of  the  character  and  reception  of  the  books 
in  question.  That  Eusebius  recurred  to  this  medium  of  information, 
and  that  he  had  examined  with  attention  this  species  of  proof,  is 
shown,  first,  by  a  passage  in  the  very  chapter  we  are  quoting,  in 
which,  speaking  of  the  books  which  he  calls  spurious,  ‘  None  (says 
he)  of  the  ecclesiastical  writers,  in  the  succession  of  the  apostles 
have  vouchsafed  to  make -any  mention  of  them  in  their  writings; 
and,  secondly,  by  another  passage  of  the  same  work,  wherein,  speak¬ 
ing  of  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  ‘  This  (says  he)  the  presbyters  of 
pcient  times  have  quoted  in  their  writings  as  undoubtedly  genu¬ 
ine  and  then,  speaking  of  some  other  writings  bearing  the  name 
of  Peter,  ‘  We  know  (he  says)  that  they  have  not  been  delivered 
down  to  us  in  the  number  of  Catholic  writings,  forasmuch  as  no 
ecclesiastical  writer  of  the  ancients,  or  of  our  times,  has  made  use 
of  testimonies  out  of  them.’  ‘  But  in  the  progress  of  this  history,’ 
the  author  proceeds,  w'e  shall  make  it  our  business  to  show,  to¬ 
gether  with  the  successions  from  the  apostles,  what  ecclesiastical 
writers,  in  every  age,  have  used  such  writings  as  these  which  are 
contradicted,  and  what  they  have  said  with  regard  to  the  Scriptures 
received  in  the  New  Testament,  and  acknowledged  hy  all,  and  with 
regard  to  those  which  are  not  such.’t 
After  this  it  is  reasonable  to  believe,  that  when  Eusebius  states 
the  four  Gospels,  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  as  uncontradicted, 
imcontested,  and  acknowdedged  by  all ;  and  when  he  places  them 
in  opposition,  not  only  to  those  which  were  spurious,  in  our  sense 
of  that  term,  but  to  those  which  were  controverted,  and  even  to 
those  which  w'ere  well  known  and  approved  by  many,  yet  doubted 
of  by  some ;  he  represents  not  only  the  sense  of  his  own  age,  but 
the  result  of  the  evidence  which  the  writings  of  prior  ages,  from 
the  apostle’s  time  to  his  own,  had  furnished  to  his  inquiries.  The 
opinion  of  Eusebius  and  his  contemporaries  appears  to  have  been 
founded  upon  the  testimony  of  writers  whom  they  then  called 
ancient:  and  we  may  observe,  that  such  of  the  works  of  these 
writers  as  have  come  dowm  to  our  times,  entirely  confirm  the  judg¬ 
ment,  and  support  the  distinction,  which  Eusebius  proposes.  The 
books  which  he  calls  ‘books  universally  acknowledged,’  are  in  fact 
used  and  quoted  in  the  remaining  works  of  Christian  writers,  during 
in^e  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  between  the  apostles’  time  and  that 
of  Eusebius,  much  more  frequently  than,  and  in  a  different  manneir 
from,  those,  the  authority  of  which,  he  tells  us,  was  disputed. 


*  Lardner,  vol.  viii.  p.  99. 


23 


t  Ib.  p.  111. 


106 


Paley^s  View  of  the 


SECT.  IX. 


founded. 


Near  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  Celsus  a 

rtv‘iTo;7»oiiSL"i,Trrn 

Siat  Chrysostom,  two  centuries  afterword,  observed,  that  tire  L.os 

sXX'XwerTradXX  all^ 

iSaSSSixr 

calls  it,  a  mere  oratorical  flourish.  ^  Celsus' 

It  is  sufficient,  however,  to  P^’oy^’ ™  Uten  bv  th. 
there  were  books  well  known,  and  allowed  to  r- v,  Ru  thi 

Xles  of  Jesus,  which  books  -stained  o  Bf  A; 

STfXeXX  sssS„rX" 


♦  Ori"  cont.  Cels.  1.  i.  sect.  xli.  t  In  Mn«.  Horn.  1.  7. 

t  Lardner,  Jewish  and  Heathen  Test  vol.  u.  p.  274. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  107 

the'GoroT*'’Th»TJ‘®®’  Christians  of  altering 

S  r  ^  accusation  refers  to  some  variations  in  the  read¬ 
ings  of  particular  passages ;  for  Celsus  goes  on  to  object,  that  when 
they  Pressed  hard,  and  one  reading  has  been  confuted,  they  dis¬ 
own  that,  and  fly  to  another.  We  cannot  perceive  from  Origei/  that 

caflmi^  thp^^f particular  instances,  and  without  such  specifi¬ 
cation  the  charge  is  of  no  value.  But  the  true  conclusion  to  be 

torir^wS' there  were  in  the  hands  of  the  Christians,  his 
tones,  which  were  even  then  of  some  standing;  for,  various  read 
mgs  and  corruptions  do  not  take  place  in  recen!  production^ 

Kprit  quotation,  the  reader  will  remember,  proves  that  these 

t}?p  composed  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  strictly  so  called  • 

the  present  quotation  shows,  that,  though  objections  were  taken  bv 

lerfmSm  In'?  ^  books  non? 

were  made  to  their  genuineness. 

3.  In  a  third  passage,  the  Jew,  whom  Celsus  introduces  shuts  nn 

an  argument  m  this  manner  These  things  then  we  Sve  alllgS 

It  rmardfe°s^  fh?‘hv"h“”'f  “I  any  other  weaponl’t 

U  IS  manliest  that  this  boast  proceeds  upon  the  supposition  that  the 

teoks,  over  which  tlm  writer  affects  to  triumph,  pLsessed  an  au- 

^r?ha^t  flm  ho  confessed  themselves  to  be  bmind. 

4.  l  hat  the  books  to  which  Celsus  refers  were  no  other  than  our 
present  Gospels,  ^  made  out  by  his  allusions  to  various  passages  sf  11 
found  in  these  Gospels.  Celsus  takes  notice  of  the^SS 
which  fixes  two  of  these  Gospels;  of  the  precepts,  Resfst  not S 

dioHon!  °ther  also,t  of  the  woes  denounced  by  Christ;  of  his  pre- 
dictions ,  of  his  saying,  that  it  is  impossible  to  serve  two  masters  ;$ 
nf  t  f  be  the  crown  of  thorns,  and  the  reed  in  his  S  • 

of  he  blood  that  flowed  from  the  body  of  Jesus  upon  thT  croi  |i 

omi  foTIh?^^®  recorded  by  John  alone ;  and  (what  is  insfar 
^nmm  for  the  purpose  for  w^hich  we  produce  it)  of  the  difference 
n  the  accounts  given  of  the  resurrection  by  the  evangelists  some 
mentioning  two  angels  at  the  sepulchre,  others  only  on^H 
it  is  extremely  material  to  remark,  that  Celsus  not  only  perpetu 

S'^  bn? tha?h  ®  accounts  of  Christ  contained  in  the^four  Gos 
that  he  referred  to  no  other,  accounts ;  that  he  founded 

spurious  Gosp^r^'"''^  Christianity  upon  any  thing  delivered  in 

century,  Porphyry  became  in 
■he  ChrktG?^^  '^’bich  was  a  large  and  formal  treatise  against 

o  religion,  is  not  extant.  We  must  be  content  therefore 

o  gather  his  objections  from  Christian  writers,  who  have  noticed  in 


+  and  Heathen  Test.  vol.  ii.  p.  275.  t  Ib  n  27fi 

U%i‘  .  §Ib.p.277.  II  Ib.  p.  280,^281  U  Ib  p 

ected  only  a  few,  are  w?!!  col- 


108 


Paleifs  VieiD  of  the 


orfer  to  answer  them; 

formation,  to  prove  ““f  „„  Snt  Gospels,  and  of 

“  -erthrow 

the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ,  p  y  y  objects  to  the  repeti- 

them  was  to  overthrow  the  re  ^  •  genealoo-y;  to  Matthew’s 

tion  of  a  general, on  m  Samt  Matthew  s  gM<!“Jt.y  '  ^ 

call;  to  thequotationof  a  text  fiom  isaiafe^wn^^  „f  Tiberias  a 

psalm  ascribed  to  ^  Matthew  ‘the  abomination  of  deso- 

sea ;  to  the  expression  S™*  Xrk  upon  the  text.  ‘  The 

lation  to  the  variation  in  ^  tthew  citing  it  from  Isaias, 

voice  of  one  crying  in  the  the  term  ‘  Word 

Mark  from  the  to  the  feast  of  taber- 

“  ?lGohfvU®8)  to  tte  judgment  denounced  by  13aint  Peter 

nacles  (John  vii.  o)  ,  to  J  ,  p  imprecation  of  death.’‘= 

Ananias  and  Sapphira,  P  j-e,  to  show  the 

The  instances  here  ^Jeged  serve,  some^^^  Porphyry  had  read 

nature  of  Po^P^yT^^^f^f^^tention^which  a  writer  would  employ 
the  Gospels  with  that  sort  of  whicn  a  w^  r^ 

who  regarded  them  as  the  .  .  there  exists,  in  the  wTitings  of  ' 

“'“m  r?^£nf  of  Scri^mre 

TpSn  wUcf  Porph^y  had  — d  were 

MiXew!cyshim;~grfi^ihealso^^^^^^^ 

Christ,  except  these,  as  having  Christian  religion  was  the 

eiiSro^r 

Jerome,  It  appears^  that  Julia  ,  ^ -^g  Christ;  that  he  ob- 

in  the  difference  between  their  gene  g  j, 

jected  to  Matthew’s  a,PP'‘0“«op  of  the  pro^hecy^ 

have  I  called  g /"hl^k^atings  o  P- 

’nf  hif  historv  in  the  very  wo?ds  of  the  evangelists ;  in  par 
sages  of  his  history,  y  ^  ^  people,  and  exorcised  do 

ticular,  that  Josus  healed  larne  and  bUM 

moniacs  in  the  villages  of  Be  creation  of  th( 

.hat  none  of  Christ’s  Jscples  ascrAed  to  oreatmn^^^ 

world,  except  John ;  that  neither  ,  ^  ^  j  wrote  later  thai 

Ks™?45i5;i:i;S.=HS 

sSSMSaK«ss£S 


*  Jewish  and  Heathen  Test.  vol.  iii.  P- 166,  &c. 
t  Ib.  vol.  iv.  p.  77,  &c. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  109 

quoting  of  the  four  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  A  postles,  and  by 
quoting  no  other,  Julian  shows  that  these  were  the  historical  books, 
and  the  only  historical  books,  received  by  Christians  as  of  authority, 
and  as  the  authentic  memoirs  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  his  apostles,  and 
of  the  doctrines  taught  by  them.  But  Julian’s  testimony  does  some¬ 
thing  more  than  represent  the  judgment  of  the  Christian  church  in 
his  time.  It  discovers  also  his  own.  He  himself  expressly  states 
the  early  date  of  these  records ;  he  calls  them  by  the  names  which 
they  now  bear.  He  all  along  supposes,  he  nowhere  attempts  to 
question,  their  genuineness. 

The  argument  in  favor  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  drawn 
from  the  notice  taken  of  their  contents  by  the  early  writers  against 
the  rehgion,  is  very  considerable.  It  proves  that  the  accounts,  wdiich 
Christians  had  then,  were  the  accounts  which  we  have  now ;  that 
our  present  Scriptures  were  theirs.  It  proves,  moreover,  that  nei¬ 
ther  Celsus  in  the  second.  Porphyry  in  the  third,  nor  Julian  in  the 
fourth  century,  suspected  the  authenticity  of  these  books,  or  even 
insinuated  that  Christians  w^ere  mistaken  in  the  authors  to  whom 
they  ascribed  them.  Not  one  of  them  expressed  an  opinion  upon 
this  subject  different  from  that  w’hich  was  holden  by  Christians. 
And  when  we  consider  how  much  it  would  have  availed  them  to 
have  cast  a  doubt  upon  this  point,  if  they  could ;  and  how  ready 
they  showed  themselves  to  be,  to  take  every  advantage  in  their 
power;  and  that  thej;-  were  all  men  of  learning  and  inquiry;  their 
concession,  or  rather  their  suffrage,  upon  the  subject,  is  extremely 
valuable. 

In  the  case  of  Porphyry,  it  is  made  still  stronger,  by  the  considera¬ 
tion  that  he  did  in  fact  support  himself  by  this  species  of  objection, 
when  he  saw  any  room  for  it,  or  when  his  acuteness  could  supply 
any  pretence  for  alleging  it.  The  prophecy  of  Daniel  he  attacked 
upon  this  very  ground  of  spuriousness,  insisting  that  it  was  written 
after  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  maintains  his  charge  of 
forgery  by  some  far-fetched  indeed,  but  very  subtle  criticisms.  Con¬ 
cerning  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  no  trace  of  this  sus¬ 
picion  is  anywhere  to  be  found  in  him.* 


SECT.  X. 

Formal  catalogues  of  authentic  Scriptures  vxre  published,  in  all  which 
our  present  sacred  histories  were  included. 

This  species  of  evidence  comes  later  than  the  rest ;  as  it  was  not 
natural  that  catalogues  of  any  particular  class  of  books  should  be 
put  forth  until  Christian  writings  became  numerous ;  or  until  some 
writings  showed  themselves,  claiming  titles  which  did  not  belong  to 
hem,  and  thereby  rendering  it  necessary  to  separate  books  of  au- 


*  Michaelis's  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  vol.  i.  p.  43.  Marsh’s 
Franslation.  K 


110 


Paley's  View  of  the 


thoritv  from  others.  But,  when  it  does  appear,  it  is  extremely  satis- 
fhcto^;  the  catalogues,  though  numerous,  and  made  m 
a  wide  distance  from  one  another,  differmg  ®To 

nothing  which  is  material,  and  all  containing  the  four  Gospels. 

this  last  article  there  is  no  exception.  come  extracts 

r  Tn  thp  writimrs  of  Origen  which  remain,  and  in  some  exiracis 

preserved  by  SS,  from  works  of  h.s  which  are  now  los  .  there 
are  enumermions  of  the  books  of  ° 

pels  and  the  Acta  of  the  Apostles  S 

Ld,  and  in  which  no  books  appear  beside  what  are  now  rMeiv^ 
The  reader,  by  this  time,,  will  easily  recollect  that  the  date  ot  uri 

SeSriSw 

SSS?SSiS.nran-aS^^ 

*in  ’ About  twenty  years  after  Athanasius,  Cyril,  bishop  of  Jerusa¬ 
lem  setS  a  ?Soi!ue  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  publicly  read 
ir.hafumetatheSchof  Jerusata  same  as  ours, 

'irAnd  MielnTe^ralt  CMAe  council  of  Laodicea  deliv¬ 
ered  an  authoritative  catalogue  of  Canonmal^Scr.pmre._hke  Cyril  s, 
the  same  as  ours,  with  the  omission  of  Reveladon. 

V  Tataloffues  now  became  frequent.  Within  thirty  years  aue 
the  ias??am*St  is,  from  the  year  363  to  n-r  *e  co“ 
fourth  century,  we  have  catalogues  by  EpiphaniuSj^  oy  v^ego  y 

’whhrtL"sa°r -reriod,  Jerom 

writer  of  his  age,  delivered  a  catalogue  of  *<=  books  of  Ae  Nea 
Testament,  recognizing  every  book  “o™  «oeived,  wnh  tto  ^ 
tion  of  a  doubt  concerning  the  Epis  le  w  the  Hebrews  aloM,  am 

saf in  Vrica  who  j^Al^ed  ~,;;ata^ 
at  this  day  acknowledge.tt 


§  Ib.  p.  368. 


i^^^Sh^nius  omHs  th®  Acts  Tws  wo?k;  h 

So"  eTsOwtiOSVx^reS'y'  refers^  this  book,  and  ascribes  »  to  Luke 
ft  Lardner,  Cred  vol.  x.  p.  lo 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  Ill 

VIII.  And  with  these  concurs  another  conteinporaiy  writer, 
Uufen,  presbyter  of  Aquileia,  whose  catalogue,  like  theirs,  is  perfect 
and  unmixed,  and  concludes  with  these  remarkable  words;  ‘These 
are  the  volumes  which  the  fathers  have  included  in  the  canon,  and 
out  of  w’hich  they  would  have  us  prove  the  doctrine  of  our  faith.’* 


SECT.  XI. 

These  propositions  cannot  he  predicated  of  any  of  those  books  which 

are  commonly  called  the  Apocryphal  Books  of  the  New  feslament. 

I  no  not  know  that  the  objection  taken  from  apocryphal  writings 
is  at  present  much  relied  upon  by  scholars.  But  there  are  many, 
who,  hearing  that  various  Gospels  existed  in  ancient  times  under 
the  names  of  the  apostles,  may  have  taken  up  a  notion,  that  the 
selection  of  our  present  Gospels  from  the  rest,  was  rather  an  arbi¬ 
trary  or  accidental  choice,  than  founded  in  any  clear  and  certain 
cause  of  preference.  To  these  it  may  be  very  useful  to  know  the 
truth  of  the  case.  I  observe,  therefore, 

I.  That,  beside  our  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  no  Chris¬ 
tian  history,  claiming  to  be  wTitten  by  an  apostle  or  apostolical  man, 
is  quoted  within  three  hundred  yeats  after  the  birth  of  Christ,  by 
any  writer  now  extant,  or  known ;  or,  if  quoted,  is  not  quoted  with 
marks  of  censure  and  rejection. 

I  have  not  advanced  this  assertion  without  inquiry;  and  I  doubt 
not,  but  that  the  passages  cited  by  Mr.  Jones  and  Dr.  Lardner,  under 
the  several  titles  which  the  apocryphal  books  bear;  or  a  reference 
to  the  places  w'here  they  are  mentioned  as  collected  in  a  very  accu¬ 
rate  table,  published  in  the  year  1773,  by  the  Rev.  J.  Atkinson,  will 
make  out  the  truth  of  the  proposition  to  the  satisfaction  of  every 
fair  and  competent  judgment.  If  there  be  any  book  which  may 
seem  to  form  an  exception  to  the  observation,  it  is  a  Hebrew  Gos¬ 
pel,  which  was  circulated  under  the  various  titles  of  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes,  of  the  Ebi- 
onites,  sometimes  called  of  the  Twelve,  by  some  ascribed  to  Saint 
Matthew.  This  Gospel  is  once,  and  only  once,  cited  by  Clemens 
Alexandrinus,  who  lived,  the  reader  will  remember,  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  second  century,  and  which  same  Clement  quotes  one  or 
other  of  our  four  Gospels  in  almost  every  page  of  his  work.  It  is 
twice  mentioned  by  Origen,  a.  d.  230 ;  and  both  times  with  marks 
of  diminution  and  discredit.  And  this  is  the  ground  upon  which 
the  exception  stands.  But  wfoat  is  still  more  material  to  observe  is, 
that  this  Gospel,  in  the  main,  agreed  with  our  present  Gospel  of 
Saint  Matthew.t 


*  Lardner,  Cred.  vol.  x.  187. 

t  In  applying  to  this  Gospel,  what  Jerome  in  the  latter  end  of  the  fourth 
century  has  mentioned  of  a  Hebrew  Gospel,  I  think  it  probable  that  we 
sometimes  confound  it  with  a  Hebrew  copy  of  Saint  Matthew’s  Gospel, 
itliethor  an  original  or  version,  which  was  then  extant. 


1X2  Palsy's  View  of  the 

Now  if,  with  this  account  of  the  apocryphal  Gospels,  we  compare 
what  we  have  read  concerning  the  canonical  Scriptures  in  the  pre¬ 
ceding  sections ;  or  even  recollect  that  general  but  well-founded 
assertion  of  Dr.  Lardner,  ‘That  in  the  remaining  works  of  Irenasus, 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  Tertullian,  who  all  lived  in  the  first 
tw'O  centuries,  there  are  more  and  larger  quotations  of  the  sma.I 
volume  of  the  Nev,'  Testament,  than  of  all  the  works  of  Cicero,  by 
writers  of  all  characters,  for  several  ages  and  if  to  this  we  add, 
that,  notwithstanding  the  loss  of  many  works  of  the  primitive  times 
of  Christianity,  we  have,  within  the  above-mentioned  period,  ttie 
remains  of  Christian  writers,  who  lived  in  Palestine,  Syria,  Asia 
Minor,  Egypt,  the  part  of  Africa  that  used  the  Latin  tongue,  in 
Crete,  Greece,  Italy,  and  Gaul,  in  all  which  remains,  references  are 
found  to  our  evangelists ;  I  apprehend,  that  we  shall  perceive  a 
clear  and  broad  line  of  division,  between  those  writings,  and  all 
others  pretending  to  similar  authority. 

II.  But  beside  certain  histories  which  assumed  the  names  of  apos¬ 
tles,  and  w'hich  were  forgeries  properly  so  called,  there  vvere  some 
other  Christian  writings,  in  the  whole  or  in  part  of  an  historical  na¬ 
ture,  which,  though  not  forgeries,  are  denominated  apocryphal,  as 
being  of  uncertain  or  of  no  authority. 

Of  this  second  class  of  writings,  I  have  found  only  two  which  are 
noticed  by  any  author  of  the  first  three  centuries,  without  express 
terms  of  condemnation ;  and  these  are,  the  one,  a  book  entitled  the 
Preaching  of  Peter,  quoted  repeatedly  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus;’ 
A.  D.  196;  the  other,  a  book  entitled  the  Revelation  of  Peter,  upon 
which  the  above-mentioned  Clemens  Alexandrinus  is  said,  by  Eu¬ 
sebius,  to  have  written  notes ;  and  which  is  twice  cited  in  a  work 
still  extant,  ascribed  to  the  same  author. 

I  conceive,  therefore,  that  the  proposition  we  have  before  acL 
vanced,  even  after  it  had  been  subjected  to  every  exception,  of 
every  kind,  that  can  be  alleged,  separates,  by  a  wide  interval,  our 
historical  Scriptures  from  all  other  writings  which  profess  to  give 
an  account  of  the  same  subject. 

We  may  be  permitted  however  to  add, 

1.  That  there  is  no  evidence  that  any  spurious  or  apocryphal 

books  whatever  existed  in  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era,  in 
which  century  all  our  historical  books  are  proved  to  have  been  ex¬ 
tant.  ‘  There  are  no  quotation^  of  ai^  such  books  in  the  apostolical 
fathers,  by  whom  I  mean  Barnabas,  Cllement  of  Rome,  Hermas,  I^ 
natius,  and  Polycarp,  whose  writings  reach  from  about  the  year  of 
our  Lord  70,  to  the  year  108  (and  some  of  whom  have  quoted  each 
and  every  one  of  our  historical  Scriptures) ;  I  say  this,  adds  Dr. 
Lardner,  ‘because  I  think  it  has  been  proved. ’t  '  u  r 

2.  These  apocryphal  writings  were  not  read  in  the  churches  of 
Christians ; 

3.  Were  not  admitted  into  their  volume; 

4.  Do  not  appear  in  their  catalogues ; 


*  Lardner,  Cred.  vol.  xii.  p.  53v 


’  Ib.  vol.  xii.  p.  158- 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  113 

5.  Were  nof,  noticed  by  their  adversaries ; 

6.  Were  not  alleged  by  different  parties  as  of  authority  in  their 
controversies ; 

7.  Were  not  the  subjects,  amongst  them,  of  commentaries,  ver¬ 
sions,  collations,  expositions. 

Finally;  beside  the  silence  of  three  centuries,  or  evidence, 
within  that  time,  of  their  rejection,  they  were,  with  a  consent  nearly 
universal,  reprobated  by  Christian  writers  of  succeeding  ages. 

Although  it  be  made  out  by  these  observations,  that  the  books  in 
question  never  obtained  any  degree  of  credit  and  notoriety  which 
can  place  them  in  competition  with  our  Scriptures ;  yet  it  appears, 
from  the  writings  of  the  fourth  century,  that  many  such  existed  in 
that  century,  and  in  the  century  preceding  it.  It  may  be  difficult 
at  this  distance  of  time  to  account  for  their  origin.  Perhaps  the 
most  probable  explication  is,  that  they  were  in  general  composed 
with  a  design  of  making  a  profit  by  the  sale.  Whatever  treated  of 
the  subject,  would  find  purchasers.  It  was  an  advantage  taken  of 
the  pious  curiosity  of  unlearned  Christians.  With  a  view  to  the 
same  purpose,  they  were  many  of  them  adapted  to  the  particular 
opinions  of  particular  sects,  which  would  naturally  promote  their 
circulation  amongst  the  favorers  of  those  opinions.  After  all,  they 
were  probably  much  more  obscure  than  we  imagine.  Except  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  there  is  none  of  which  we  hear 
more  than  the  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians ;  yet  there  is  good  reason  to 
believe  that  Clement,  a  presbyter  of  Alexandria  in  Egypt,  a.  d.  184, 
and  a  man  of  almost  universal  reading,  had  never  seen  it.*  A 
Gospel  according  to  Peter,  was  another  of  the  most  ancient  books 
of  this  kind ;  yet  Serapion,  bishop  of  Antioch,  a.  n.  200,  had  not 
read  it,  when  he  heard  of  such  a  book  being  in  the  hands  of  the 
Christians  of  Rhossus  in  Cilicia ;  and  speaks  of  obtaining  a  sight  of 
this  Gospel  from  some  sectaries  who  used  itt  Even  of  the  Gospel 
of  the  tiebrews,  which  confessedly  stands  at  the  head  of  the  cata¬ 
logue,  Jerome,  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  was  glad  to  procure 
a  copy  by  the  favor  of  the  Nazarenes  of  Berea.  Nothing  of  this 
sort  ever  happened,  or  could  have  happened  concerning  our 
Gospels. 

One  thing  is  observable  of  all  the  apocryphal  Christian  writings, 
viz.  that  they  proceed  upon  the  same  fundamental  history  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  as  that  which  is  disclosed  in  our  Scriptures.  The 
mission  of  Christ,  his  power  of  working  miracles,  his  communication 
of  that  power  to  the  apostles,  his  passion,  death,  and  resurrection, 
are  assumed  or  asserted  by  every  one  of  them.  The  names  under 
which  some  of  them  came  forth,  are  the  names  of  men  of  eminence 
in  our  histories.  What  these  books  give,  are  not  contradictions,  but 
unauthorized  additions.  The  principal  facts  are  supposed,  the  prin¬ 
cipal  agents  the  same ;  which  shows,  that  these  points  w^ere  too 
much  fixed  to  be  altered  or  disputed. 

If  there  be  any  book  of  this  description,  which  appears  to  have 


t  Lardner,  Cred.  vol.  ii.  p.  5-57. 

K  2 


*  Jones,  vol.  i.  p.  243. 


114  Faley's  View  of  the 

imposed  upon  some  considerable  number  of  learned  Christians,  it  is 
the  Sibylline  oracles ;  but,  when  we  reflect  upon  the  circumstances 
which  facilitated  that  imposture,  we  shall  cease  to  wonder  either  at 
the  attempt  or  its  success.  It  was  at  that  time  universally  undei- 
stood,  that  such  a  prophetic  writing  existed.  Its  contents  were  kept 
secret.  This  situation  afforded  to  some  one  a  hint,  as  w'ell  as  an 
opportunity,  to  give  out  a  waiting  under  this  name,  favorable  to  the 
already  established  persuasion  of  Christians,  and  which  writing,  by 
the  aid  and  recommendation  of  these  circumstances,  would  in  some 
degree,  it  is  probable,  be  received.  Of  the  ancient  forgery  we  know 
but  little :  what  is  now  produced,  could  not,  in  my  opinion,  have 
imposed  upon  any  one.  It  is  nothing  else  than  the  Gospel  history, 
woven  into  verse ;  perhaps  w^as  at  firet  rather  a  fiction  than  a  foi- 
gery  5  an  exercise  of  ingenuity,  more  than  an  attempt  to  deceive. 


CHAP  X. 

Recapitulation. 

The  reader  will  now  be  pleased  to  recollect,  that  the  two  points 
which  form  the  subject  of  our  present  discussion,  are,  first,  that  the 
Founder  of  Christianity,  his  associates,  and  immediate  followers, 
passed  their  lives  in  labors,  dangers,  and  sufferings ;  secondly,  that 
they  did  so,  in  attestation  of  the  miraculous  history  recorded  m  our 
Scriptures,  and  solely  in  consequence  of  their  belief  of  the  truth  of 

that  history.  ■  ,  u 

The  argument,  by  which  these  twm  propositions  have  been  main¬ 
tained  by  us,  stands  thus :  •  i  i,  u 

No  historical  fact,  I  apprehend,  is  more  certain,  than  that  the 
original  propagators  of  Christianity  voluntarily  subjected  themselves 
to  lives  of  fatigue,  danger,  and  suffering,  in  the  prosecution  of  their 
undertaking.  The  nature  of  the  undertaking ;  the  character  of  the 
person  employed  in  it ;  the  opposition  of  their  tenets  to  the  fixed 
opinions  and  expectations  of  the  country  in  which  they  first  ad¬ 
vanced  them ;  their  undissembled  condemnation  of  the  religion  of 
all  other  countries ;  their  total  want  of  power,  authority,  or  force ; 
render  it  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  this  must  have  been 
the  case.  The  probability  is  increased,  by  what  we  know  of  the 
fate  of  the  Founder  of  the  institution,  who  was  put  to  death  for  his 
attempt ;  and  by  what  we  also  know  of  the  cruel  treatment  of  the 
converts  to  the  institution,  within  thirty  years  after  its  commence¬ 
ment  ;  both  which  points  are  attested  by  heathen  writers,  and,  being 
once  admitted,  leave  it  very  incredible  that  the  primitive  emissaries 
of  the  religion,  who  exercised  their  ministry,  first,  amongst  the 
people  who  had  destroyed  their  Master,  and,  afterward,  amongst 
those  who  persecuted  their  converts,  should  themselves  escape  with 
impunity,  or  pursue  their  purpose  in  ease  and  safety.  This  proba¬ 
bility,  thus  sustained  by  foreign  testimony,  is  advanced,  I  think,  to 
historical  certainty,  by  the  evidence  of  our  own  books  ;  by  the  ac 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  115 

counts  of  a  writer  who  was  the  companion  of  the  persons  whose 
sufferings  he  relates ;  by  the  letters  of  the  persons  themselves ;  by 
predictions  of  persecutions  ascribed  to  the  Founder  of  the  religion, 
which  predictions  would  not  have  been  inserted  in  this  history, 
much  less  have  been  studiously  dwelt  upon,  if  they  had  not  ac¬ 
corded  with  the  event,  and  which,  even  if  falsely  ascribed  to  him, 
could  only  have  been  so  ascribed,  because  the  event  suggested 
them ;  lastly,  by  incessant  exhortations  to  fortitude  and  patience, 
and  by  an  earnestness,  repetition,  and  urgency,  upon  the  subject, 
which  were  unlikely  to  have  appeared,  if  there  had  not  been,  at  the 
time,  some  extraordinary  call  for  the  exercise  of  these  virtues. 

It  is  made  out  also,  I  think,  with  sufficient  evidence,  that  both  the 
teachers  and  converts  of  the  religion,  in  consequence  of  their  new 
profession,  took  up  a  new  course  of  life  and  behavior. 

The  next  great  question  is,  what  they  did  this  for.  That  it  was 
for  a  miraculous  story  of  some  kind  or  other,  is  to  ray  apprehension 
extremely  manifest ;  because,  as  to  the  fundamental  article,  the  de¬ 
signation  of  the  person,  viz.  that  this  particular  person,  Jesus  of 
JVazareth,  ought  to  be  received  as  the  Messiah,  or  as  a  messenger 
from  God,  they  neither  had,  nor  could  have,  any  thing  but  miracles 
to  stand  upon.  That  the  exertions  and  sufferings  of  the  apostles 
were  for  the  story  which  we  have  now,  is  proved  by  the  considera¬ 
tion  that  this  story  is  transmitted  to  us  by  two  of  their  own  number, 
and  by  two  others  personally  connected  with  them ;  that  the  par¬ 
ticularity  of  the  narrative  proves,  that  the  writers  claimed  to  possess 
circumstantial  information,  that  from  their  situation  they  had  full 
opportunity  of  acquiring  such  information;  that  they  certainly,  at 
least,  knew  what  their  colleagues,  their  companions,  their  masters, 
taught ;  that  each  of  these  books  contains  enough  to  prove  the  truth 
of  the  religion ;  that,  if  any  one  of  them  therefore  be  genuine,  it 
is  sufficient ;  that  the  genuineness,  however,  of  all  of  them  is  made 
out,  as  well  by  the  general  arguments  which  evince  the  genuine¬ 
ness  of  the  most  undisputed  remains  of  antiquity,  as  a:lso  by  pecu¬ 
liar  and  specific  proofs,  viz.  by  citations  from  then!  in  writings  be¬ 
longing  to  a  period  immediately  contiguous  to  that  in  which  they 
were  published ;  by  the  distinguished  regard  paid  by  early  Chris¬ 
tians  to  the  authority  of  these  books  (which  regard  was  manifested 
by  their  collecting  of  them  into  a  volume,  appropriating  to  that  volume 
titles  of  peculiar  respect,  translating  them  into  various  languages, 
digesting  them  into  harmonies,  writing  commentaries  upon  them, 
and,  still  more  conspicuously,  by  the  reading  of  them  in  their  public 
assemblies  in  all  parts  of  the  world) ;  by  a  universal  agreement 
with  respect  to  these  books,  whilst  doubts  were  entertained  concern¬ 
ing  some  others ;  by  contending  sects  appealing  to  them ;  by  the 
early  adversaries  of  the  religion  not  disputing  tlieir  genuineness, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  treating  them  as  the  depositaries  of  the  history 
upon  which  the  religion  was  founded  ;  by  many  formal  catalogues 
of  these,  as  of  certain  and  authoritative  writings,  published  in  dif¬ 
ferent  and  distant  parts  of  the  Christian  world ;  lastly,  by  the  ab- 


116 


Paley^s  View  of  the 

sence  or  defect  of  the  above-cited  topics  of  evidence,  when  applied 

to  anv  other  histories  of  the  same  subject.  ,  ,  ,  ^  n 

These  are  strong  arguments  to  prove,  that  the  books  actually  pro¬ 
ceeded  from  the  autlmrs  whose  names  they  bear  (and  have  afways 
borne,  for  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  to  show  ^hat  they  ever 
went  under  any  other) ;  but  the  strict  genuineness  of  the  books  is 
perhaps  more  than  is  necessary  to  the  support  of  our  preposition. 
For  even  supposing  that,  by  reason  of  the  silence  of 
lo«s  of  records,  we  know  not  who  were  the  writers  of  the  four  Gos¬ 
pels  vet  the  fact,  that  they  were  received  as  authentic,  accounts  ot 
the  tmnsaction  upon  which  the  religion  ^e^t^^pind  were  received 
as  such  by  Christians,  at  or  near  the  age  of  the  apostles,  by  those 
whom  thJ  apostles  had  taught,  and  by  socmties  which  aposdes  had 
fnnnded-  this  fact,  I  say,  connected  with  the  consideration,  that 
Ihefare’corl^tarative  of  each  other's  testimony,  and  that  they  are 
farther  corroborated  by  another  contemporary  hptory,  taking  up  the 
Sory  where  they  had^eft  it,  and,  in  a  narrative  Wit  upon  that 
story  accounting  for  the  rise  and  production  of  changes  in  the 
woSd,  the  effect!  of  which  subsist  at  this  day  ;  ^y 

with  the  confirmation  which  they  receive  from  letters  wntpn  by 
the  apostles  themselves,  which  both  assume  the  saine  general  stoiy, 
and, ms  often  as  occasions  lead  them  to  do  so,  allude  o  Particular 
parts  of  it;  and  connected  also  with  the  reflection,  that  if  the  apos- 
Ses  delivered  any  different  story,  it  is  lost  (the  present  and  no  othe 
being  referred  to^by  a  series  of  Christian  writers,  down  from  tlmir 
age  fo  our  own;  being  likewise  recognized  in  a 
lions  which  prevailed  early  and  umversally,  amongst  the  disciples 
of  the^Sfgion) ;  and  that  s'o  great  a  change,  as  the  oblivion  of  one 
story  and  the  substitution  of  another,  under  such  circumstances, 
coufd  not  have  taken  place;  this  evidence  would  be  ^^dn 
apprehend,  sufficient  to  prove  concerning  these  books,  uiat,  wno 
were  the  authors  of  them,  they  exhibit  the  story  which  the 
apostles  told,  and  for  which,  consequently,  they  acted,  and  they  sui- 

Ir^it  be  so,  the  religion  must  be  true.  These  men  f^uld  not  be 
deceivers.  By  only  not  bearing  testimony,  they  might  have  avoided 
il  thise  suffJrings^nd  have  “lived  quietly.  Would  men  in  such 
circumstances  pretend  to  have  seen  wlmt  they 
facts  which  they  had  no  knowledge  of;  go  about  lying,  to  teach 
virtue ;  and,  though  not  only  convinced  of  Christ  s  bmng  an  jupop 
tor,  but  having  seen  the  success  of  his  imposture  m  his  crucifix  , 
et  persist  in  carrying  it  on ;  and  so  persist,  as  to  bring  upon  them- 
elvl^s.  fcfnothin^and  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  consequence, 
enmity  and  hatred,  danger  and  death  ? 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 


117 


PROPOSITION  IL 

Our  first  proposition  was,  ‘  That  there  is  satisfactory  evidence  that  many, 
pretending  to  be  original  witnesses  of  the  Christian  miracles,  passed  their 
lives  in  labors,  dangers,  and  sufferings,  voluntarily  undertaken  and  under¬ 
gone  in  attestation  of  the  accounts  which  they  delivered,  and  solely  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  their  beliff  of  the  truth  of  those  accounts  ;  and  that  they  also  sub¬ 
mitted, from  the  same  motives,  to  new  rules  of  conduct.'  Our  second  propo¬ 
sition,  and  which  now  remains  to  be  treated  of,  is. 

That  there  is  not  satisfactory  evidence,  that  persons  pretending  to  be  original 
witnesses  of  any  other  similar  miracles,  have  acted  in  the  same  manner,  in 
attestation  of  the  accounts  which  they  delivered,  and  solely  in  consequence 
of  their  belief  of  the  truth  of  those  accounts.' 

CHAP.  I. 

I  ENTER  upon  this  part  of  my  argument,  by  declaring  how  far  my 
belief  in  miraculous  accounts  goes.  If  the  reformers  in  the  time  of 
Wickliffe,  or  of  Luther ;  or  those  of  England,  in  the  time  of  Henry 
the  Eighth,  or  of  queen  Mary ;  or  the  founders  of  our  religious  sects 
since,  such  as  were  Mr.  Whitfield  and  Mr.  Wesley  in  our  own  times ; 
had  undergone  the  life  of  toil  and  exertion,  of  danger  and  suffer¬ 
ings,  which  we  know  that  many  of  them  did  undergo, /or  a  mirac¬ 
ulous  story ;  that  is  to  say,  if  they  had  founded  their  public  ministry 
upon  the  allegation  of  miracles  wrought  within  their  own  know¬ 
ledge,  and  upon  narratives  which  could  not  be  resolved  into  delu¬ 
sion  or  mistake;  and  if  it  had  appeared,  that  their  conduct  really 
had  its  origin  in  these  accounts,  I  should  have  believed  them.  Or, 
to  borrow  an  instance  which  will  be  familiar  to  every  one  of  my 
readers,  if  the  late  Mr.  Howard  had  undertaken  his  labors  and  jour¬ 
neys  in  attestation,  and  in  consequence  of  a  clear  and  sehsible  mir¬ 
acle,  I  should  have  believed  him  also.  Or,  to  represent  the  same 
thing  under  a  third  supposition ;  if  Socrates  had  professed  to  per¬ 
form  public  miracles  at  Athens ;  if  the  friends  of  Socrates,  Phsedo, 
Cebes,  Crito,  and  Simmias,  together  with  Plato,  and  many  of  his 
followers,  relying  upon  the  attestations  which  these  miracles  afforded 
to  his  pretensions,  had,  at  the  hazard  of  their  lives,  and  the  certain 
expense  of  their  ease  and  tranquillity,  gone  about  Greece,  after  his 
death,  to  publish  and  propagate  his  doctrines :  and  if  these  things 
hadt;ome  to  our  knowledge,  in  the  same  way  as  that  in  which  the 
life  of  Socrates  is  now  transmitted  to  us,  through  the  hands  of  his 
companions  and  disciples,  that  is,  by  writings  received  without  doubt 
as  theirs,  from  the  age  in  which  they  were  published  to  the  present, 
I  should  have  believed  this  likewise.  And  my  belief  would,  in  each 
case,  be  much  strengthened,  if  the  subject  of  the  mission  were  of 
importance  to  the  conduct  and  happiness  of  human  life ;  if  it  testi¬ 
fied  any  thing  which  it  behoved  mankind  to  know  from  such  au¬ 
thority  ;  if  the  nature  of  what  it  delivered,  required  the  sort  of  proof 


118 


Paley^s  View  of  the 


which  it  alleged ;  if  the  occasion  was  adequate  to  the  '^e^posUion, 
the  end  worthy  of  the  means.  In  the  last  case,  my  faith  would 
much  confirmed,  if  the  effects  of  the  transaction  remained ;  more 
especially,  if  a  change  had  been  wrought,  at  the  time,  in  the  opinicm 
and  conduct  of  such  numbers,  as  to  lay  the  foundation  of  an  insU 
tution  and  of  a  system  of  doctrines,  which  had  since  overspread  the 
SeSst  part  of  the  civilized  world.  I  should  have  believed,  1  say, 
fhfSSy,  in  these  eases ;  yet  none  of  them  do  more  than  come 

up  to  the  apostolic  history.  .  n  nt 

If  any  one  choose  to  call  assent  to  its  evidence  ‘^r^duhty,  it  is  at 
least  incumbent  upon  him  to  produce  examples  in  which  the  same 
?v?dence  hath  turned  out  to  be  lallacious.  And  this  contains  the 
nrecise  ouestion  which  we  are  now  to  agitate. 

^  In  statinc^  the  comparison  between  our  evidence,  and  what  our 
adveiaries  may  brin^g  into  competition  -r^we  wd^ 

the  distinctions  which  we  wish  to  propose  into  J^o  ^md^  those 
which  relate  to  the  proof,  and  those  which  relate  to  the  miracles 

Under  the  former  head  we  may  lay  out  of  the  case, 

I.  Such  accounts  of  supernatural  events  as  are  found  only  m  * 
tories  by  some  ages  posterior  to  the  transaction,  and  of  which  it  n 
evident  that  the°historian  could  knoiv.Httle  more  ^ 

Ours  is  contemporary  history.  This  difference  A  ‘ 

of  our  way,  the  miraculous  history  of  Pythagoras,  who  lived  five  , 
hundred  years  before  the  Christian  era,  written  by  Porphyry  and 
JambhcuZ  who  lived  three  hundred  years  after  that  era ;  the  prodi- 
S  of  Ws  history ;  the  fables  of  the  heroic  ages ;  the  whole  of 
the  Greek  and  Roman,  as  well  as  of  the  Gothic  mythology ,  ^  great 
nart  of  the  legendary  history  ol  Popish  saints,  the  very  best  attested 
of  which  is  extracted  from  the  certificates  that  exhibited  during 
the  process  of  their  canonization,  a  ceremony  which  seldom  takesi 
pW  ?iil  a  century  after  their  deaths.  It  applies  also  with  consid¬ 
erable  force  to  the^miracles  of  Apollonius  Tyaneus,  which  are  con¬ 
tained  in  a  solitary  history  of  his  life,  published  ^7 . 

?bove  a  hundred  years  after  his  death ;  and  in  winch,  whethei 
Philostratus  had  any  prior  account  to  guide  him,  depends  upon  hi. 
fingR  Sisuppor^  Lsertion.  Also  to  some  of  the  miracles  of  th 
thifd  cLtury,  especially  to  one  extraordinary  instance,  the  accouni 
of  Gregory,  Lshop  of  Neocesarea,  called  Thaumaturgus,  ^elivere 
in  the  Sings  of  Gregory  of  Nyssen,  who  lived  one  hundred  and 

thirtv  years  after  the  subject  of  his  panegyric.  t„i,. 

TL^value  of  this  circumstance  is  shown  to  have  been  accuratel^y 
exemplified  in  the  history  of  Ignatius  Loyola,  founder  of  the  orde 
of  Jesuits.^  His  life,  written  by  a  companion  of  his,  and  by  one  of 
file  Older,  was  published  about  fifteen  years  ^^er  his  death  Ir 
which  life,  the  author,  so  far  from  ascribing  any  miracles  to  Ign 
tins  industriously  states  the  reason  why  he  was  not  invested  witl 
anv’such  power.^  The  life  was  republished  fifteen  yeare  afterward 
with  the  addition  of  many  circumstances  which  were  the  fruit,  th( 


*  Douglas’s  Criterion  of  Miracles,  p.  74. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  119 

author  says,  of  farther  inquiry,  and  of  diligent  examination ;  but  still 
with  a  total  silence  about  miracles.  When  Ignatius  had  been  dead 
nearly  sixty  years,  the  Jesuits,  conceiving  a  wish  to  have  the 
founder  of  their  order  placed  in  the  Roman  calendar,  began,  as  it 
should  seem,  for  the  first  time,  to  attribute  to  him  a  catalogue  of 
miracles,  which  could  not  then  be  distinctly  disproved ;  and  which 
there  was,  in  those  w'ho  governed  the  church,  a  strong  disposition 
to  admit  upon  the  slenderest  pro#fs. 

II.  We  may  lay  out  of  the  case,  accounts  published  in  one  coun¬ 
try,  of  what  passed  in  a  distant  country,  without  any  proof  that 
such  accounts  were  known  or  received  at  home.  In  the  case  of 
Christianity,  Judea,  which  was  the  scene  of  the  transaction,  W’as 
the  centre  of  the  mission.  The  story  was  published  in  the  place 
in  which  it  w'as  acted.  The  church  of  Christ  was  first  planted  at 
Jerusalem  itself.  With  that  church,  others  corresponded.  From 
thence  the  primitive  teachers  of  the  institution  went  forth ;  thither 
they  assembled.  The  church  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  several  churches 
of  Judea,  subsisted  from  the  beginning,  and  for  many  ages  re¬ 
ceived  also  the  same  books  and  the  same  accounts,  as  other  churches 
did. 

This  distinction  disposes,  amongst  others,  of  the  above-mentioned 
miracles  of  Apollonius  Tyaneus,  most  of  which  are  related  to  have 
been  performed  in  India ;  no  evidence  remaining  that  either  the 
miracles  ascribed  to  him,  or  the  history  of  those  miracles,  w'ere  ever 
heard  of  in  India.  Those  of  F rancis  Xavier,  the  Indian  missionary, 
with  many  others  of  the  Romish  breviary,  are  liable  to  the  same 
objection,  viz.  that  the  accounts  of  them  were  published  at  a  vast 
distance  from  the  supposed  scene  of  the  wonders.t 

III.  We  lay  out  of  the  case  transient  rumors.  Upon  the  first  pub¬ 
lication  of  an  extraordinary  account,  or  even  of  an  article  of  ordi¬ 
nary  intelligence,  no  one,  who  is  not  personally  acquainted  with 
the  transaction,  can  know  whether  it  be  true  or  false,  because  any 
man  may  publish  any  story.  It  is  in  the  future  confirmation,  or  con- 
toadiction,  of  the  account;  in  its  permanency,  or  its  disappearance; 
its  dying  away  into  silence,  or  its  increasing  in  notoriety ;  its  being 
followed  up  by  subsequent  accounts,  and  being  repeated  in  different 
and  independent  accounts ;  that  solid  truth  is  distinguished  from 
fugitive  lies.  This  distinction  is  altogether  on  the  side  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  The  story  did  not  drop.  On  the  contraiy,  it  was  succeeded 
by  a  train  of  action  and  events  dependent  upon  it.  The  accounts, 
which  we  have  in  our  hands,  were  composed  after  the  first  reports 
must  have  subsided.  They  were  followed  by  a  train  of  writings 
upon  the  subject.  The  historical  testimonies  of  the  transaction 
were  many  and  various,  and  connected  with  letters,  discourses, 


*  The  succession  of  many  eminent  bishops  of  Jerusalem  in  the  first 
three  centuries,  is  distinctly  preserved ;  as  Alexander,  a.  d.  212,  w'ho 
succeeded  Narcissus,  then  116  years  old. 
t  Douglas’s  Crit.  p.  84. 


120  Paleyh  View  of  the 

controverses,  apologies,  successively  produced  by  the  same  transac- 

We  may  lay  out  of  the  case  what  I  call  naked  history.  It  has 
been  said,  that  if  the  prodigies  of  the  Jewish  history  had  been  found 
only  in  fragments  of  Manetho,  or  Berosus,  we  should  have  paid  no 
regard  to  them  :  and  I  am  willing  to  admit  this.  If  we  knew  nm 
thing  of  the  fact,  but  from  the  fragment ;  if  we  possessed  no  proof 
that  these  accounts  had  been  credited  and  acted  upon,  froni  times, 
probably,  as  ancient  as  the  accounts  themselves;  if  we  had  no 
visible  effects  connected  with  the  history,  no  subsequent  or  collate¬ 
ral  testimony  to  confirm  it ;  under  these  circumstances,  I  think  that 
it  would  be  undeserving  of  credit.  But  this  certainly  is  not  our 
case.  In  appreciating  the  evidence  of  Christianity,  the  books  are 
to  be  combined  with  the  institution;  with  the  prevalency  of  the 
relio-ion  at  this  day ;  with  the  time  and  place  of  its  origin,  which  are 
acknowledged  points ;  with  the  circumstances  of  its  rise  and  pro¬ 
gress,  as  collected  from  external  history ;  with  the  fact  of  our  pres¬ 
ent  books  being  received  by  the  votaries  of  the  institution  from  the 
beo^inning;  with  that  of  other  books  coming  after  these,  filled  with 
accounts  of  effects  and  consequences  resulting  from  the  transaction, 
or  referring  to  the  transaction,  or  built  upon  it ;  lastly,  w  ith  the 
consideration  of  the  number  and  variety  of  the  books  themselves, 
the  different  writere  from  which  they  proceed,  the  different  views 
with  which  they  were  written,  so  disagreeing  as  to  repel  the  sus¬ 
picion  of  confederacy,  so  agreeing  as  to  show  that  they  were 
founded  in  a  common  original,  i.  e.  in  a  story  suhstantially  the  same. 
Whether  this  proof  be  satisfactoiy  or  not,  it  is  properly  a  cumulation 
of  evidence,  by  no  means  a  naked  or  solitary  record. 

V.  A  mark  of  historical  truth,  although  only  in  a  certain  way,  and 
to  a  certain  degree,  is  particularity^  in  names,  dates,  places,  circum¬ 
stances,  and  in  the  order  of  events  preceding  or  following  the  trans¬ 
action  :  of  which  kind,  for  instance,  is  the  particularity  in  the  de¬ 
scription  of  Saint  Paul’s  voyage  and  shipwreck,  in  the  27th  chapter 
of  the  Acts,  which  no  man,  I  think,  can  read  without  being-  con- 
vinced  that  tho  writer  was  there  ^  and  also  iu  the  account  of  the 
cure  and  examination  of  the  blind  man,  in  the  ninth  chapter  of 
Saint  John’s  Gospel,  which  bears  every  mark  of  personal  knowledge 
on  the  part  of  the  historian.’*'  I  do  not  deny  that  fiction  has  often 
the  particularity  of  truth ;  but  then  it  is  of  studied  and  elabomte 
fiction,  or  of  a  formal  attempt  to  deceive,  that  we  observe  thi^ 
Since,  however,  experience  proves  that  particularity  is  not  confined 
to  truth,  I  have  stated  that  it  is  a  proof  of  truth  only  to  a  certain 
extent,  i.  e.  it  reduces  the  question  to  this,  whether  we  can  depend 
or  not  upon  the  probity  of  the  relater  ?  which  is  a  considerable  ad¬ 
vance  in  our  present  argument ;  for  an  express  attempt  to  deceive, 
in  which  case  alone  particularity  can  appear  without  truth,  is 
charged  upon  the  evangelists  by  few.  If  the  historian  acknowli-dge 


»  Both  these  chapters  ought  to  be  read  for  the  sake  of  this  very  obser¬ 
vation. 


121 


Evidences  of  Christianity, 

liimself  to  have  received  his  intelligence  from  others,  the  particu¬ 
larity  of  the  narrative  shows,  •prima  facie,  the  accuracy  of  his  inqui¬ 
ries,  and  the  fullness  of  his  information.  This  remark  belongs  to 
Saint  Luke’s  history.  Of  the  particularity  which  we  allege,  many 
examples  may  be  found  in  all  the  Gospels.  And  it  is  very  difficult 
to  conceive,  that  such  numerous  particularities,  as  are  almost  every¬ 
where  to  be  met  with  in  the  Scriptures,  should  be  raised  out  of 
nothing,  or  be  spun  out  of  the  imagination  without  any  fact  to  go 
upon.^ 

It  is  to  be  remarked,  however,  that  this  particularity  is  only  to  be 
looked  for  in  direct  history.  It  is  not  natural  m  references  or  allu¬ 
sions,  which  yet,  in  other  respects,  often  afford,  as  far  as  they  go,  the 
most  unsuspicious  evidence. 

VI.  We  lay  out  of  the  case  such  stories  of  supernatural  events,  as 
require,  on  the  part  of  the  hearer,  nothing  more  than  an  otiose  as¬ 
sent;  stories  upon  which  nothing  depends,  in  which  no  interest  is 
involved,  nothing  is  to  be  done  or  changed  in  consequence  of  be¬ 
lieving  them.  Such  stories  are  credited,  if  the  careless  assent  that 
is  given  to  them  deserve  that  name,  more  by  the  indolence  of  the 
hearer,  than  by  his  judgment;  or,  though  not  much  credited,  are 
passed  from  one  to  another  without  inquiry  or  resistance.  To  this 
case,  and  to  this  case  alone,  belongs  what  is  called  the  love  of  the 
marvelloits.  I  have  never  known  it  carry  men  farther.  Men  do  not 
suffer  persecution  from  the  love  of  the  marvellous.  Of  the  indifferent 
nature  we  are  speaking  of,  are  most  vulgar  errors  and  popular  su¬ 
perstitions  :  most,  for  instance,  of  the  current  reports  of  apparitions. 
Nothing  depends  upon  their  being  true  or  false.  But  not,  surely,  of 
this  kind  were  the  alleged  miracles  of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 
They  decided,  if  true,  the  most  important  question  upon  which  the 
human  mind  can  fix  its  anxiety.  They  claimed  to  regulate  the 
opinions  of  mankind,  upon  subjects  in  which  they  are  not  only 
deeply  concerned,  but  usually  refractory  and  obstinate.  Men  could 
not  be  utterly  careless  in  such  a  case  as  this.  If  a  Jew  took  up  the 
story,  he  found  his  darling  partiality  to  his  own  nation  and  law 
wounded  ;  if  a  Gentile,  he  found  his  idolatry  and  polytheism  repro¬ 
bated  and  condemned.  Whoever  entertained  the  account,  whether 
Jew  or  Gentile,  could  not  avoid  the  following  reflection: — Tf  these 
things  be  true,  I  must  give  up  the  opinions  and  principles  in  which 
I  have  been  brought  up,  the  religion  in  which  my  fathers  lived  and 


*  ‘  There  is  always  some  truth  where  there  are  considerable  particu¬ 
larities  related  ;  and  they  always  seem  to  bear  some  proportion  to  one 
another.  Thus,  there  is  a  great  want  of  the  particulars  of  time,  place, 
and  persons,  in  Manetho's  account  of  the  Egyptian  Dynasties,  Ctesias’s 
of  the  As.syrian  Kings,  and  those  which  the  technical  chronologers  have 
given  of  the  ancient  kingdoms  of  Greece  :  and  agreeably  thereto,  the  ac¬ 
counts  have  much  fiction  and  falsehood,  with  some  truth  :  whereas  Thu¬ 
cydides’s  History  of  the  Peloponnesian  War,  and  Csesar’s  of  the  War  in 
Gaul,  in  both  which  particulars  of  time,  place,  and  persons,  are  men 
tinned,  are  universally  esteemed  true  to  a  great  degree  of  exactness.’ 
Hartley,  vol.  ii.  p.  109. 


24 


L 


122 


Paley's  View  of  the 


died  ’  It  is  not  conceivable  that  a  man  should  do  this  upon  any  idle 
report  or  frivolous  account,  or,  indeed,  without  being  fully  satisfied 
an^ convinced  of  the  truth  and  credibility  of  the  narrative  to  which 
he  trusted.  But  it  did  not  stop  at  opinions.  They  who  believed 
rtiristianitv  acted  upon  it.  Many  made  it  the  express  business  of 
Sieir  lives^o  publish  the  intelligence.  It  was  required  of  those  who 
admitted  that^  intelligence,  to  change  forthwith  their  conduct^nd 
their  principles,  to  take  up  a  different  course  of  life,  to  part  witn 
S  haMte  and  gratifications,  and  begin  a  new  set  of  rules,  and 
system  of  behavior.  The  apostles,  at  least,  were 
sacrifice  their  ease,  their  fortunes,  and  their  lives,  for  an  idle  tale , 
multitudes  besides  them  were  induced,  by  the  same  tale,  to  en- 

fiuure  ..ate  wotM  do  all 
this  •  I  answer,  that  the  mere  prormse  of  a  future  state,  without  any 
evidence  to  give  credit  or  assurance  to  it,  would  do  nothing.  A  few 
wandering  fishermen  talking  of  a  resurrection  of  the  ^ead,  could 
produce  no  effect.  If  it  be  farther  said,  that  men  easily  beheve 
what  they  anxiously  desire;  I  again  answer  that,  in  "?y 
very  contrary  of  this  is  nearer  to  the  truth.  Anxiety  of  desire,; 
earnestness  S’  expectation,  the  vastness  of  an  event,  rather  causes 
men  to  disbeheve,  to  doubt,  to  dread  a  fallacy,  to  distrust,  and  to  ex¬ 
amine.  When  our  Lord’s  resurrection  was  first  reported  to  the 
apostles,  they  did  not  believe,  we  are  told,  for  joy.  This  was  natural,; 

an^is  a^eeaWe  to  _exp^^  of  the  case  those  accounts  which  require 

no  more  than  a  simple  assent;  and  we  now  also  lay  out  of  the  case 
those  which  come  merely  in  affirmance  of  opinions  already  formed 
This  last  circumstance  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  notice 
has  long  been  observed,  that  Popish  miracles  happen  in  Popisl 
countries;  that  they  make  no  converts:  which  proves  that  storie: 
are  accepted,  when  they  fall  in  with  principles  already  fixed,  witl 
the  public  sentiments,  or  with  the  sentiments  of  a  party  already  en 
eased  on  the  side  the  miracle  supports,  which  w9uld  not  be  at 
tempted  to  be  produced  in  the  face  of  enemies,  m  opposition  t< 
reigning  tenets  or  favorite  prejudices,  or  when,  if  they  be  believed 
the  belief  must  draw  men  away  from  their  preconceived  and  habitua 
opinions,  from  their  modes  of  life  and  rules  of  action.  In  the  forme, 
case,  men  may  not  only  receive  a  miraculous  account,  but  may  both  ac 
and  suffer  on  the  side  and  in  the  cause,  which  the  miracle  supports 
vet  not  act  or  suffer  for  the  miracle,  but  in  pursuance  of  a  prior  per 
suasion.  The  miracle,  like  any  other  argument  which  only  confirm 
what  was  before  believed,  is  admitted  with  little  exaimnation.  H 
the  moral,  as  in  the  natural  world,  it  is  change  which  requires 
cause.  Men  are  easily  fortified  in  their  old  opinions,  driven  fror 
them  with  great  difficulty.  Now  how  does  this  apply  to  the  .t^hn. 
tian  history  ?  The  miracles,  there  recorded,  were  wrought  m  th 
midst  of  enemies,  under  a  government,  a  priesthood,  and  a  magis 
tracv,  decidedly  and  vehemently  adverse  to  them,  and  to  the  prt 
tensions  which  they  supported.  They  were  Protestant  miracles  m 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  123 

Popish  ccmntry ;  they  were  Popish  miracles  in  the  midst  of  Pro¬ 
testants.  They  produced  a  change ;  they  established  a  society  upon 
the  spot  adhering  to  the  belief  of  them ;  they  made  converts ;  and 
those  who  were  converted  gave  up  to  the  testimony  their  most  fixed 
opimons  and  most  favorite  prejudices.  They  who  acted  and  suffered 
m  the  cause,  acted  and  suffered /or  the  miracles;  for  there  was  no 
anterior  persuasion  to  induce  them,  no  prior  reverence,  prejudice,  or 
partialitv,  to  take  hold  of  Jesus  had  not  one  follower  when  he  set 
up  his  clami.  His  miracles  gave  birth  to  his  sect.  No  part  of  this 
descnption  belongs  to  the  ordinary  evidence  of  Heathen  or  Popish 
miracles.  Even  most  of  the  miracles  alleged  to  have  been  per¬ 
formed  by  Christians,  m  the  second  and  third  century  of  its  era 
want  this  confirmation.  It  constitutes  indeed  a  line  of  partition  be¬ 
tween  the  origin  and  the  progress  of  Christianity.  Frauds  and  falla- 
cies  might  mix  thernselves  with  the  progress,  which  could  not  possi¬ 
bly  mke  place  in  the  commencement  of  the  religion:  at  least,  ac- 
wu  human  conduct  that  we  are  acquainted  with. 

What  should  suggest  to  the  first  propagators  of  Christianity,  espe- 
cially  to  fishermen,  tax-gatherers,  and  husbandmen,  such  a  thought 

religion  of  the  world ;  what  could  bear  them 
through  the  difficulties  in  which  the  attempt  engaged  them ;  what 
could  procure  any  degree  of  success  to  the  attempt;  are  questions 
which  apply,  with  great  force,  to  the  setting  out  of  the  institution; 
with  less,  to  every  future  stage  of  it. 

T®  hear  some  men  talk,  one  would  suppose  the  setting  up  of  a  re- 
ligion  by  miracles  to  be  a  thing  of  every  day’s  experience;  whereas 
the  whole  current  of  history  is  against  it.  Hath  any  founder  of  a 
new  sect  amongst  Christians  pretended  to  miraculous  powers,  and 
succeeded  by  his  pretensions?  ‘Were  these  powers  claimed  or  ex¬ 
ercised  by  the  founders  of  the  sects  of  the  Waldenses  and  Albi- 
genses ?  Did  Wickliffe  in  England  pretend’ to  it?  Did  Huss  or  Je- 
rome  in  Bohemm?  Did  Luther  in  Germany,  Zuinglius  in  Switzer- 
land,  Calvin  in  France,  or  any  of  the  reformers,  advance  this  plea?’* 
Ihe  f  rench  prophets,  in  the  beginning  of  the  present  centui-y,t  ven¬ 
tured  to  allege  miraculous  evidence,  and  immediately  ruined  their 
cause  by  their  temerity.  ‘Concerning  the  religion  of  ancient  Rome 
3t  lurkey,  of  Siam,  of  China,  a  single  miracle  cannot  be  named 
that  was  ever  offered  as  a  test  of  any  of  those  religions  lefore  their 
establishment. ’t 

We  may  add  to  what  has  been  observed  of  the  distinction  which 
are  considering,  that,  where  miracles  are  alleged  merely  in 
dhrraance  of  a  prior  opinion,  they  who  believe  the  doctrine  may 
iometimes  propagate  a  belief  of  the  miracles  which  they  do  not 
hemsel-^s  entertain.  This  is  the  case  of  what  are  called  •pious 
rauds ;  tmt  it  is  a  case,  I  apprehend,  which  takes  place  solely  in 
‘upport  of  a  persuasion  already  established.  At  least  it  does  not 


*  Campbell  on  Miracles,  p.  120.  ed.  1766. 
I  Adams  on  Mir.  p.  75. 


t  The  eighteenth. 


124 


Paleyh  View  of  the 


hold  of  the  apostolical  history.  If  the  apostles  did  not  believe  the 
miracles,  they  did  not  believe  the  religion  ,•  and,  without  this  belief, 
where  was  ttie  piety,  what  place  was  there  lor  any  thing  which 
could  bear  the  name  or  color  of  piety,  in  publishing  and  attesting 
miracles  in  its  behalf?  If  it  be  said  that  any  promote  the  belief  of 
revelation,  and  of  any  accounts  which  favor  that  belief,  because 
they  think  them,  whether  well  or  ill  founded,  of  public  and 
utility;  I  answer,  that  if  a  character  exist,  ^hich  can  with  es^ 
justice  than  another  be  ascribed  to  the  founders  of  the  Chnstiar. 
religion;  it  is  that  of  politicians,  or  of  men  capable  of  entertaining 
political  views.  The  truth  is,  that  there  is  no  assignable  pharacte 
which  will  account  for  the  conduct  of  the  apostles,  supposing  then, 
story  to  be  false.  If  bad  men,  what  could  have  induced  the^  tc 
take  such  pains  to  promote  virtue?  If  good  men,  they  would  no 
have  gone  about  the  country  with  a  strmg  of  lies  in  their  mouths. 


In  appreciating  the  credit  of  any  miraculous  story,  these  an 
distinctions  which  relate  to  the  evidence. 

tions,  of  great  moment  in  the  question,  which  relate  to  the  miracle, 
themselves.  Of  which  latter  kind  the  following  ought  carefully  t( 

^^I.^  bTi^ntt  necessary  to  admit  as  a  miracle,  what  can  be  resol vec 
into  a  false  perception.  Of  this  nature  was  the  demon  of  Socratea 
the  visions  Saint  Anthony  and  of  many  others;  vision  whicl 
Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury  describes  himself  to  have  seen,  Cotone 
Gardiner’s  vision,  as  related  in  his  life,  written  by  Dr.  Doddridge 
All  these  may  be  accounted  for  by  a  momentary  insanity;  lor  tn 
characteristic  symptom  of  human  madness  is  the  rising  up  m 
mind  of  images  not  distinguishable  by  the  patient  from  impression 
upon  the  senses.=^  The  cases,  however,  in  which  the  possibility  o 
this  delusion  exists,  are  divided  from  the  cases  in 
exist,  by  many,  and  those  not  obscure  marks.  They  are,  for  the  mo. 
part,  cJses  of  visions  or  voices.  The  object  is  hardly  ever  toucher 
The  vision  submits  not  to  be  handled.  One  sense  does  not  confirr 
another.  They  are  likewise  almost  always  cases  of  a  solitary  mu 
ness.  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable,  and  I  know  not,  indeer 
whether  it  hath  ever  been  the  fact,  that  the  same  derangement  o 
the  mental  organs  should  seize  different  persons  at  the  same  time 
a  derangement,  I  mean,  so  much  the  same,  as  to  represent  to  the) 
imagination  the  same  objects.  Lastly,  these  are  always  cases  o 
momentary  miracles ;  by  which  term  I  mean  to  denote  miracles,  o 
which  the  whole  existence  is  of  short  duration,  m  contradistinc  o 
to  miracles  which  are  attended  with  permanent  effects.  The  appea 
ance  of  a  spectre,  the  hearing  of  a  supernatural  sound,  is  a  momen 
ary  miracle.  The  sensible  proof  is  gone.vvhen  the  apparition  c 
siund  is  oyer.  But  if  a  person  born  blind  be  restored  ^ 
notorious  cripple  to  the  use  of  his  limbs,  or  a  dead  t®  M®;  ^®^ 
is  a  permanent  effect  produced  by  supernatural  mean^The  chang 
ndeed  was  instantaneous,  but  the  proof  continues.  The  subject  o 


*  Batty  on  Lunacy. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  125 

the  miracle  remains.  The  man  cured  or  restored  is  there  ;  his  for¬ 
mer  condition  was  known,  and  his  present  condition  may  be  ex¬ 
amined.  This  can  by  no  possibility  be  resolved  into  false  percep¬ 
tion  ;  and  ot  this  kind  are  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  miracles 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  When  Lazarus  was  raised  from 
the  dead,  he  did  not  merely  move,  and  speak,  and  die  again ;  or 
come  out  of  the  grave,  and  vanish  away.  He  returned  to  his  home 
and  family,  and  there  continued ;  for  w'e  find  him,  some  time  after¬ 
ward,  in  the  same  towm,  sitting  at  table  with  Jesus  and  his  sisters ; 
visited  by  great  multitudes  of  the  Jews,  as  a  subject  of  curiosity; 
giving  by  his  presence  so  much  uneasiness  to  the  Jewdsh  rulers  as 
to  beget  in  them  a  design  of  destroying  him.*  No  delusion  can 
account  for  this.  The  French  prophets  in  England,  some  time  since, 
gave  out  that  one  of  their  teachers  would  come  to  life  again  ;  but 
their  enthusiasm  never  made  them  believe  that  they  actually  saw 
him  alive.  The  blind  man,  whose  restoration  to  sight  at  Jerusalem 
is  recorded  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  St.John’s  Gospel,  did  not  quit 
the  place  or  conceal  himself  from  inquiry.  On  the  contrary,  he  was 
forthcoming,  to  answer  the  call,  to  satisfy  the  scrutiny,  and  to  sus¬ 
tain  the  brow-beating  of  Christ’s  angry  and  powerful  enemies 
WTien  the  cripple  at  the  gate  of  the  temple  was  suddenly  cured  by 
Peter,t  he  did  not  immediately  relapse  into  his  former  lameness,  or 
disappear  out  of  the  city ;  but  boldly  and  honestly  produced  him¬ 
self  along  with  the  apostles,  when  they  were  brought  tlih  next  day 
l^fore  the  Jewish  council.t  Here,  though  the  miracle  was  sudden, 
the  proof  was  permanent.  The  lameness  had  been  notorious,  the 
cure  continued.  This,  therefore,  could  not  be  the  effect  of  any 
momentary  delirium,  either  in  the  subject  or  in  the  witnesses  of  the 
transactions.  It  is  the  same  with  the  greatest  number  of  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  miracles.  There  are  other  cases  of  a  mixed  nature,  in  which, 
although  the  principal  miracle  be  momentary,  some  circumstance 
combined  with  it  is  permanent.  Of  this  kind  is  the  history  of  St. 
Paul  s  conversion.5  The  sudden  light  and  sound,  the  vision  and 
the  voice,  upon  the  road  to  Damascus,  were  momentary ;  but  Paul’s 
blindness  for  three  days  in  consequence  of  what  had  happened; 
the  communication  m.ade  to  Ananias  in  another  place,  and  by  a 
vision  independent  of  the  former ;  Ananias  finding  out  Paul  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  intelligence  so  received,  and  finding  him  in  the  condi¬ 
tion  described,  and  Paul’s  recovery  of  his  sight  upon  Ananias’s 
laying  his  hands  upon  him;  are  circumstances,  which  take  the 
transaction,  and  the  principal  miracle  as  included  in  it,  entirely  out 
of  the  case  of  momentary  miracles,  or  of  such  as  may  be  accounted 
false  perceptions.  Exactly  the  same  thing  may  be  observed 
of  Peter’s  vision  preparatory  to  the  call  of  Cornelius,  and  of  its  con¬ 
nexion  with  what  was  imparted  in  a  distant  place  to  Cornelius  him¬ 
self,  and  with  the  message  dispatched  by  Cornelius  to  Peter.  The 
Vision  might  be  a  dream ;  the  message  could  not.  Either  commu- 


*  John  xii.  f,  2.  9,  10. 


t  Acts  iii.  2. 


I  Ib.  iv.  14. 


§  Ib.  ix. 

L2 


126 


Paley^s  View  of  the 

nication,  taken  separately,  might  be  a  delusion ;  the  concurrence 
of  the  two  was  impossible  to  happen  without  a  supernatural  cause. 

Beside  the  risk  of  delusion  which  attaches  upon  momentary  mir 
acles,  there  is  also  much  more  room  for  imposture.  The  account 
cannot  be  examined  at  the  moment;  and,  when  that  is  also  a  mo 
ment  of  hurry  and  confusion,  it  may  not  be  difficult  for  men  of 
influence  to  gain  credit  to  any  story  which  they  may  wash  to  have 
believed.  This  is  precisely  the  case  of  one  of  the  best  attested  of 
the  miracles  of  Old  Rome,  the  appearance  of  Castor  and  Pollux  in 
the  battle  fought  by  Posthumius  with  the  Latins  at  the  lake  Regil- 
lus.  There  is  no  doubt  but  that  Posthumius,  after  the  battle,  spread 
the  report  of  such  an  appearance.  JNo  person  could  deny  it  whilst 
it  was  said  to  last.  No  person,  perhaps,  had  any  inclination  to  dis¬ 
pute  it  afterward ;  or,  if  they  had,  could  say  wuth  positiveness,  what 
was  or  what  was  not  seen,  by  some  or  other  of.  the  army,  in  the 
dismay  and  amidst  the  tumult  of  a  battle. 

In  assigning  false  perceptions  as  the  origin  to  which  some  mirac¬ 
ulous  accounts  may  be  referred,  I  have  not  mentioned  claims  to 
inspiration,  illuminations,  secret  notices  or  directions,  internal  sensa¬ 
tions,  or  consciousness  of  being  acted  upon  by  spiritual  influences, 
good  or  bad ;  because  these,  appealing  to  no  external  proof,  however 
convincing  they  may  be  to  the  persons  themselves,  form  no  part  of 
what  can  be  accounted  miraculous  evidence.  Their  own  credi¬ 
bility  stands  upon  their  alliance  with  other  miracles.  The  discus-‘ 
sion,  therefore,  of  all  such  pretensions  may  be  omitted. 

II.  It  is  not  necessary  to  bring  into  the  comparison  what  may  be 
called  tentative  miracles ;  that  is,  where,  out  of  a  great  number  of 
trials,  some  succeeded;  and  in  the  accounts  of  which,  although  the 
narrative  of  the  successful  cases  be  alone  preserved,  and  that  of 
the  unsuccessful  cases  sunk,  yet  enough  is  stated  to  show  that  the 
cases  produced  are  only  a  few  out  of  many  in  which  the  same 
means  have  been  employed.  This  observation  bears,  with  consider¬ 
able  force,  upon  the  ancient  oracles  and  auguries,  in  which  a  single 
coincidence  of  the  event  with  the  prediction  is  talked  of  and  mag¬ 
nified,  whilst  failures  are  forgotten,  or  suppressed,  or  accounted  for. 
It  is  also  applicable  to  the  cures  wrought  by  relics,  and  at  the  tombs 
of  saints.  The  boasted  efficacy  of  the  king’s  touch,  upon  which  Mr. 
Hume  lays  some  stress,  falls  under  the  same  description.  Nothing 
is  alleged  concerning  it,  w'hich  is  not  alleged  of  various  nostrums, 
namely,  out  of  many  thousands  who  have  used  them,  certified 
proofs  of  a  few  who  have  recovered  after  them.  No  solution  of 
this  sort  is  applicable  to  the  miracles  of  the  Gospel.  There  is  no¬ 
thing  in  the  narrative,  which  can  induce,  or  even  allow,  us  to  believe, 
that  Christ  attempted  cures  in  many  instances,  and  succeeded  in  a 
few ;  or  that  he  ever  made  the  attempt  in  vain.  He  did  not  profess 
to  heal  everywhere  all  that  were  sick;  on  the  contrary,  he  told  the 
Jews,  evidently  meaning  to  represent  his  own  case,  that,  ‘  although 
many  widows  w'ere  in  Israel  in  the  days  of  Llias,  when  the  heaven 
w'as  shut  up  three  years  and  six  months,  when  great  famine  was 
throughout  all  the  land,  yet  unto  none  of  them  was  Elias  sent,  save 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 


m 


unto  Sarepta,  a  city  of  Sidon,  unto  a  woman  that  was  a  wddow 
and  that  ‘  many  lepers  were  in  Israel  in  the  time  of  Eliseus  the 
prophet,  and  none  of  them  was  cleansed  save  Naaman  the  Syrian.’* 
By  whicii  examples  he  gave  them  to  understand,  that  it  was  not  the 
nature  of  a  divine  interposition,  or  necessary  to  its  purpose,  to  be 
general ;  still  less  to  answer  every  challenge  that  might  be  made, 
which  would  teach  men  to  put  their  faith  upon  these  experiments. 
Christ  never  pronounced  the  word,  but  the  effect  followed.t  It 
was  not  a  thousand  sick  that  received  his  benediction,  and  a  few 
that  were  benefited ;  a  single  paralytic  is  let  down  in  his  bed  at 
Jesus’s  feet,  in  the  midst  of  a  surrounding  multitude ;  Jesus  bid  him 
w^alk,  and  he  did  so.t  A  man  with  a  withered  hand  is  in  the  wna- 
gogue ;  Jesus  bid  him  stretch  forth  his  hand,  in  the  presence  of  the 
assembly,  and  it  was  restored  ‘  whole  like  the  other.’§  There  was 
nothing  tentative  in  these  cures ;  nothing  that  can  be  explained  by 
the  power  of  accident 

We  may  observe  also,  that  ma  ’  ’  ’  ’  Christ 


wrought,  such  as  that  of  a  person 


many 


miracles  beside,  as  raising  the  dead,  walking  upon  the  sea,  feeding 
a  great  multitude  with  a  few  loaves  and  fishes,  are  of  a  nature 
which  does  not  in  anywise  admit  of  the  supposition  of  a  fortunate 
experiment. 

III.  We  may  dismiss  from  the  question  all  accounts  in  which,  al¬ 
lowing  the  phenomenon  to  be  real,  the  fact  to  be  true,  it  still  re¬ 
mains  doubtful  whether  a  miracle  were  wrought.  This  is  the  case 
with  the  ancient  history  of  what  is  called  the  thundering  legion,  of 
the  extraordinary  circumstances  which  obstructed  the  rebuilding  of 
the  temple  at  Jerusalem  by  Julian,  the  circling  of  the  flames  and 
fragrant  smell  at  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp,  the  sudden  shower 
tliat  extinguished  the  fire  into  which  the  Scriptures  were  thrown 
in  the  Diocletian  persecution ;  Constantine’s  dream ;  his  inscribing 
in  consequence  of  it  the  cross  upon  his  standard  and  the  shields  of 
his  soldiers ;  his  victory,  and  the  escape  of  the  standard-bearer ; 
perhaps  also  the  imagined  appearance  of  the  cross  in  the  heavens, 
though  this  last  circumstance  is  very  deficient  in  historical  evidence. 
It  is  also  the  case  with  the  modern  annual  exhibition  of  the  lique- 
fection  of  the  blood  of  St  Januarius  at  Naples.  It  is  a  doubt  like¬ 
wise,  which  ought  to  be  excluded  by  very  special  circumstances, 
from  these  narratives  which  relate  to  the  supernatural  cure  of  hypo- 


*  Luke  iv.  25. 

t  Oue,  and  only  one,  instance  may  be  produced  in  which  the  disciples 
of  Christ  do  seem  to  have  attempted  a  cure,  and  not  to  have  been  able  to 
perform  it.  The  story  is  very  ingenuously  related  by  three  of  the  evan- 
gelists.il  The  patient  was  afterward  healed  by  Christ  himself ;  and 
the  whole  transaction  seems  to  have  been  intended,  as  it  was  well 
suited,  to  display  the  superiority  of  Christ  above  all  who  performed  mira¬ 
cles  in  his  name,  a  distinction  which,  during  his  presence  in  the  world, 
it  might  be  necessary  to  inculcate  by  some  such  proof  as  this. 


t  Mark  ii.  3. 


§  Matt.  xii.  10. 


1)  Matt.  xvii.  14.  Mark  ix.  14.  Luke  ix.  33. 


128  Foley’s  Vietv  of  the 

chondriacal  and  nervous  complaints,  and  of  all  diseases  which  are 
much  affected  by  the  imagination.  The  miracles  of  the  second  and 
third  century  are,  usually,  healing  the  sick,  and  casting  out  evil 
spirits,  miracles  in  which  there  is  room  for  some  error  and  decep¬ 
tion.  We  hear  nothing  of  causing  the  blind  to  see,  the  lame  to 
walk,  the  deaf  to  hear,  the  lepers  to  be  cleansed.*  There  are  also 
instances  in  Christian  writers,  of  reputed  miracles,  which  w  ere 
natural  operations,  though  not  known  to  be  such  at  the  time ;  as 
that  of  articulate  speech  after  the  loss  of  a  great  part  of  the  tongue. 

IV.  To  the  same  head  of  objection  nearly,  may  also  be  referred 
accounts,  in  which  the  variation  of  a  small  circumstance  may  have 
transformed  some  extraordinary  appearance,  or  some  critical  coin¬ 
cidence  of  events,  into  a  miracle  ;  stories,  in  a  word,  which  may  be 
resolved  into  exaggeration.  The  miracles  of  the  Gospel  can  by  no 
possibility  be  explained  away  in  this  manner.  Total  fiction  will 
account  for  any  thing ;  but  no  stretch  of  exaggeration  that  has  any 
parallel  in  other  histories,  no  force  of  fancy  upon  real  circumstances, 
could  produce  the  narratives  which  we  now  have.  The  feeding 
of  the  five  thousand  with  a  few  loaves  and  fishes  surpasses  all 
bounds  of  exaggeration.  The  raising  of  Lazarus,  of  the  widow’s 
son  at  Nain,  as  well  as  many  of  the  cures  which  Christ  wrought, 
come  not  within  the  compass  of  misrepresentation.  I  mean,  that  it 
is  impossible  to  assign  any  position  of  circumstances  however  pecu¬ 
liar,  any  accidental  effects  however  extraordinary,  any  natural  sin¬ 
gularity,  which  could  supply  an  origin  or  foundation  to  these  ac¬ 
counts. 

Having  thus  enumerated  several  exceptions,  which  may  justly 
be  taken  to  relations  of  miracles,  it  is  necessary  when  we  read  the 
Scriptures,  to  bear  in  our  minds  this  general  remark ;  that,  although 
there  be  miracles  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  which  fall 
within  some  or  other  of  the  exceptions  here  assigned,  yet  that  they 
are  united  with  others,  to  which  none  of  the  same  exceptions  ex¬ 
tend,  and  that  their  credibility  stands  upon  this  union.  Thus  the 
visions  and  revelations  which  Saint  Paul  asserts  to  have  been  im¬ 
parted  to  him,  may  not,  in  their  separate  evidence,  be  distinguisha¬ 
ble  from  the  visions  and  revelations  which  many  others  have 
alleged.  But  here  is  the  difference.  Saint  Paul’s  pretensions  were 
attested  by  external  miracles  wrought  by  himself,  and  by  miracles 
wrought  in  the  cause  to  which  these  visions  relate ;  or,  to  speaf 
more  properly,  the  same  historical  authority  which  informs  us  of 
one,  informs  us  of  the  other.  This  is  not  ordinarily  true  of  the 
visions  of  enthusiasts,  or  even  of  the  accounts  in  which  they  are 
contained.  Again,  some  of  Christ’s  own  miracles  were  momentary  ; 
as  the  transfiguration,  the  appearance  and  voice  from  Heaven  at  his 
baptism,  a  voice  from  the  clouds  on  one  occasion  afterward,  (John 
xii.  28.)  and  some  others.  It  is  not  denied,  that  the  distinction 
which  we  have  proposed  concerning  miracles  of  this  species,  applies. 


*  Jortin’s  Reraaiks,  vol.  ii.  p.  51. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  129 

in  diminution  of  the  force  of  the  evidence,  as  much  to  these  in¬ 
stances  as  to  othei-s.  But  this  is  the  case,  not  with  all  the  miracles 
ascribed  to  Christ,  nor  with  the  greatest  part,  nor  with  many. 
Whatever  force  therefore  there  may  be  in  the  objection,  we  have 
numerous  miracles  w^hich  are  free  from  it;  and  even  these  to 
w  hich  it  is  applicable,  are  little  affected  by  it  in  their  credit,  because 
there  are  few  who,  admitting  the  rest,  will  reject  them.  If  there 
be  miracles  of  the  New  Testament,  which  come  within  any  of  the 
other  heads  into  which  we  have  distributed  the  objections,  the  same 
remark  must  be  repeated.  And  this  is  one  way,  in  which  the  un¬ 
exampled  number  and  variety  of  the  miracles  ascribed  to  Chris 
strengthens  the  credibility  of  Christianity.  For  it  precludes  any 
solution,  or  conjecture  about  a  solution,  which  imagination,  or  even 
which  experience,  might  suggest  concerning  some  particular  mira¬ 
cles,  if  considered  independently  of  others.  The  miracles  of  Christ 
were  of  various  kinds,"^  and  performed  in  great  varieties  of  situation, 
form,  and  manner;  at  Jerusalem,  the  metropolis  of  the  Jewish  na¬ 
tion  and  religion  ;  in  different  parts  of  Judea  and  Galilee ;  in  cities 
and  villages ;  in  synagogues,  in  private  houses ;  in  the  street,  in 
highways ;  wdth  preparation,  as  in  the  case  of  Lazarus ;  by  accident, 
a,s  in  the  ease  of  the  widow’s  son  of  Nain ;  when  attended  by  mul¬ 
titudes,  and  when  alone  with  the  patient ;  in  the  midst  of  his  disci¬ 
ples,  and  in  the  presence  of  his  enemies ;  with  the  common  people 
around  him,  and  before  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  and  rulers  of  the 
synagogues. 

I  apprehend  that,  when  we  remove  from  the  comparison,  the  cases 
which  are  fairly  disposed  of  by  the  observations  that  have  been 
stated,  many  cases  will  not  remain.  To  those  which  do  remain,  we 
apply  this  final  distinction;  ‘that  there  is  not  satisfactory  evidence, 
that  persons,  pretending  to  be  original  witnesses  of  the  miracles, 
passed  their  lives  in  labors,  dangers,  and  sufferings,  voluntarily 
undertaken  and  undergone  in  attestation  of  the  accounts  which 
they  delivered,  and  properly  in  consequence  of  their  belief  of  the 
truth  of  those  accounts.’ 


CHAP.  II. 

But  they,  with  whom  we  argue,  have  undoubtedly  a  right  to 
select  their  own  examples.  The  instances  with  which  Mr.  Hume 
has  chosen  to  confront  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament,  and 


*  Not  only  healing  every  species  of  disease,  but  turning  water  into 
Wine  (John  ii.) ;  feeding  multitudes  with  a  few  loaves  and  fishes  (Malt. 
XIV.  15;  Mark  vi.  35;  Luke  ix.  12;  John  vi.  5.);  walking  on  the  sea 
(Matt.  xiv.  25.) ;  calming  a  storm  (Matt.  viii.  25 ;  Luke  viii.  24.) ;  a  ce¬ 
lestial  voice  at  his  baptism,  and  miraculous  appearance  (Matt.  iii.  16; 
afterward  John  xii.  28.) ;  his  transfiguration  (Matt.  xvii.  1 — 8;  Mark  ix. 
2;  Luke  ix.  28;  2  Peter  i.  16,  17.);  raising  the  dead  in  three  distinct 
instances  (Matt.  ix.  18 ;  Mark  v.  22 ;  Luke  viii.  41  •  Luke  vii.  14 ; 
John  XI.) 


130 


Valey^s  View  of  the 

which,  therefore,  we  are  entitled  to  regard  as  the  strongest  which 
the  history  of  the  world  could  supply  to  the  inquiries  of  a  very  acute 
and  learned  adversary,  are  the  three  following: 

I.  The  cure  of  a  blind  and  of  a  lame  man  of  Alexandria,  by  the 
emperor  Vespasian,  as  related  by  Tacitus ; 

n.  The  restoration  of  the  limb  of  an  attendant  in  a  Spanish 
church,  as  told  by  cardinal  de  Retz ;  and, 

III.  The  cures  said  to  be  performed  at  the  tomb  of  the  abbe  Paris, 
in  the  early  part  of  the  present  century. 

I.  The  narrative  of  Tacitus  is  delivered  in  these  terms:  ‘One  of 
the  common  people  of  Alexandria,  known  to  be  diseased  in  his 
eyes,  by  the  admonition  of  the  god  Serapis,  whom  that  superstitious 
nation  worship  above  all  other  gods,  prostrated  himself  before  the 
emperor,  earnestly  imploring  from  him  a  remedy  for  his  blindness, 
and  entreating  that  he  would  deign  to  anoint  with  his  spittle  his 
cheeks  and  the  balls  of  his  eyes.  Another,  diseased  in  his  hand, 
requested,  by  the  admonition  of  the  same  god,  that  he  might  be 
touched  by  the  foot  of  the  emperor.  Vespasian  at  first  derided  and 
despised  their  application ;  afterward,  when  they  continued  to  urge 
their  petitions,  he  sometimes  appeared  to  dread  the  imputation  of 
vanity;  at  other  times,  by  the  earnest  supphcation  of  the  patients, 
and  the  persuasion  of  his  flatterers,  to  be  induced  to  hope  for  suc¬ 
cess.  At  length  he  commanded  an  inquiry  to  be  made  by  the  phy¬ 
sicians,  whether  such  a  blindness  and  debility  were  vincible  by 
human  aid.  The  report  of  the  physicians  contained  various  points ; 
that  in  the  one  the  power  of  vision  was  not  destroyed,  but  would 
return  if  the  obstacles  were  removed ;  that  in  the  other,  the  dis¬ 
eased  joints  might  be  restored,  if  a  healing  power  were  applied ; 
that  it  was,  perhaps,  agreeable  to  the  gods  to  do  this ;  that  the  em¬ 
peror  was  elected  by  divine  assistance ;  lastly,  that  the  credit  of  the 
success  would  be  the  emperor's,  the  ridicule  of  the  disappointment 
would  fall  upon  the  patients.  Vespasian,  believing  that  every  thing 
was  in  the  power  of  his  fortune,  and  that  nothing  was  any  longer 
incredible,  whilst  the  multitude,  which  stood  by,  eagerly  expected 
the  event,  with  a  countenance  expressive  of  joy,  executed  what  he 
was  desired  to  do.  Immediately  the  hand  was  restored  to  its  use, 
and  light  returned  to  the  blind  man.  They  who  were  present  relate 
both  these  cures,  even  at  this  time,  when  there  is  nothing  to  be 
gained  by  lying.’'*' 

Now,  though  Tacitus  wrote  this  account  twenty-seven  years  after 
the  miracle  is  said  to  have  been  performed,  and  wrote  at  Rome  of 
what  passed  at  Alexandria,  and  wrote  also  from  report:  and  although 
it  does  not  appear  that  he  had  examined  the  story,  or  that  he  believed 
it  (but  rather  the  contrary),  yet  I  thirtk  his  testimony  sufficient  to 
prove  that  such  a  transaction  took  place :  by  which  I  mean,  that  the 
two  men  in  question  did  apply  to  Vespasian;  that  Vespasian  did 
touch  the  diseased  in  the  manner  related  ;  and  that  a  cure  was  re- 


*  Tacit.  Hist.  lib.  iv. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  131 

ported  to  have  followed  the  operation.  But  the  affair  labors  under 
a  strong  and  just  suspicion,  that  the  whole  of  it  was  a  concerted 
imposture  brought  about  by  collusion  between  the  patients,  the  phy¬ 
sician,  and  the  emperor.  This  solution  is  probable,  because  there 
was  every  thing  to  suggest,  and  every  thing  to  facilitate  such  a 
scheme.  The  miracle  was  calculated  to  confer  honor  upon  the 
emperor,  and  upon  the  god  Serapis.  It  w^as  achieved  in  the  midst 
of  the  emperor’s  flatterers  and  followers ;  in  a  city,  and  amongst  a 
populace,  beforehand  devoted  to  his  interest,  and  to  the  woi-ship  of 
the  god ;  where  it  w’ould  have  been  treason  and  blasphemy  together, 
to  have  contradicted  the  fame  of  the  cure,  or  even  to  have  ques¬ 
tioned  it.  And  what  is  very  observable  in  the  account  is,  that  the 
report  of  the  physicians  is  just  such  a  report  as  would  have  been 
made  of  a  case,  in  which  no  external  marks  of  the  disease  existed, 
and  which,  consequently,  was  capable  of  being  easily  counterfeited, 
viz.  that  in  the  first  of  the  patients  the  organs  of  vision  were  not 
destroyed,  that  the  w'eakness  of  the  second  was  in  his  joints.  The 
strongest  circumstance  in  Tacitus’s  narration  is,  that  the  first  patient 
W"as  ‘  notus  tabe  oculorum,’  remarked  or  notorious  for  the  disease  in 
his  eyes.  But  this  was  a  circumstance  which  might  have  found  its 
wmy  into  the  stoiy  in  its  progress  from  a  distant  country,  and  during 
an  interval  of  thirty  years ;  or  it  might  be  true  that  the  malady  of 
the  eyes  was  notorious,  yet  that  the  nature  and  degree  of  the  dis¬ 
ease  had  never  been  ascertained ;  a  case  by  no  means  uncommon. 
The  emperor’s  reserve  was  easily  affected ;  or  it  is  possible  he  might 
not  be  in  the  secret.  There  does  not  seem  to  be  much  weight  in 
the  observation  of  Tacitus,  that  they  who  were  present,  continued 
even  then  to  relate  the  story  when  there  was  nothing  to  be  gained 
by  the  lie.  It  only  proves  that  those  who  had  told  the  story  for  many 
years  persisted  in  it.  The  state  of  mind  of  the  witnesses  and  spec¬ 
tators  at  the  time,  is  the  point  to  be  attended  to.  Still  less  is  there 
of  pertinency  in  Mr.  Hume’s  eulogium  on  the  cautious  and  pene¬ 
trating  genius  of  the  historian ;  for  it  does  not  appear  that  the  histo¬ 
rian  believed  it.  The  terms  in  which  he  speaks  of  Serapis,  the  deity 
to  W'hose  interposition  the  miracle  was  attributed,  scarcely  suffer  us 
to  suppose  that  Tacitus  thought  the  miracle  to  be  real;  ‘by  the 
admonition  of  the  god  Serapis,  whom  that  superstitious  nation 
(dedita  superstitionibus  gens)  worship  above  all  other  gods.’  To 
have  brought  this  supposed  miracle  within  the  limits  of  comparison 
with  the  miracles  of  Christ,  it  ought  to  have  appeared,  that  a  person 
of  a  low  and  private  station,  in  the  midst  of  enemies,  with  the  whole 
power  of  the  country  opposing  him,  with  every  one  around  him 
prejudiced  or  interested  against  his  claims  and  character,  pretended 
to  perform  these  cures,  and  required  the  spectators,  upon  the  strength 
of  what  they  saw,  to  give  up  their  firmest  hopes  and  opinions,  and 
follow  him  through  a  life  of  trial  and  danger  that  many  were  so 
moved,  as  to  obey  his  call,  at  the  expense  both  of  every  notion  in 
which  they  had  been  brought  up,  and  of  their  ease,  safety,  and 
reputation ;  and  that  by  these  beginnings,  a  change  was  produced 
in  the  world,  the  effects  of  which  remain  to  this  day ;  a  case,  both 


132  Foley's  View  of  the 

in  its  circumstances  and  consequences,  very  unlike  any  thing  we 
find  in  Tacitus’s  relation. 

II.  The  story  taken  from  the  Memoirs  of  Cardinal  de  Retz,  which 
is  the  second  example  alleged  by  Mr.  Hume,  is  this :  ‘  In  the  church 
of  Saragossa  in  Spain,  the  canons  showed  me  a  man  whose  business 
it  was  to  light  the  lamps;  telling  me,  that  he  had  been  several  years 
at  the  gate  with  one  leg  only.  I  saw  him  with  two.* 

It  is  stated  by  Mr.  Hume,  that  the  cardinal,  who  relates  this  story, 
did  not  believe  it:  and  it  nowhere  appears,  that  he  either  examined 
the  limb,  or  asked  the  patient,  or  indeed  any  one,  a  single  question 
about  the  matter.  An  artificial  leg,  wrought  with  art,  would  be 
sufficient,  in  a  place  where  no  such  contrivance  had  ever  before 
been  heard  of,  to  give  origin  and  currency  to  the  report.  The  eccle¬ 
siastics  of  the  place  would,  it  is  probable,  favor  the  story,  inasmuch 
as  it  advanced  the  honor  of  their  image  and  church.  And  if  they 
patronized  it,  no  other  person  at  Saragossa,  in  the  middle  of  the  last 
century,  would  care  to  dispute  it.  The  story  likewise  coincided,  not 
less  with  the  wishes  and  preconceptions  of  the  people,  than  with 
the  interests  of  their  ecclesiastical  rulers :  so  that  there  was  preju¬ 
dice  backed  by  authority,  and  both  operating  upon  extreme  igno¬ 
rance,  to  account  for  the  success  of  the  imposture.  If,  as  I  have 
suggested,  the  contrivance  of  an  artificial  limb  was  then  new,  it 
would  not  occur  to  the  cardinal  himself  to  suspect  it ;  especially 
under  the  carelessness  of  mind  with  w'hich  he  heard  the  tale,  and 
the  little  inclination  he  felt  to  scrutinize  or  expose  its  fallacy. 

III.  The  miracles  related  to  have  been  wrought  at  the  tomb  of 
the  abbe  Paris,  admit  in  general  of  this  solution.  The  patients  who 
frequented  the  tomb  were  so  affected  by  their  devotion,  their  ex¬ 
pectation,  the  place,  the  solemnity,  and,  above  all,  by  the  sympathy 
of  the  surrounding  multitude,  that  many  of  them  were  throwm  into 
violent  convulsions,  which  convulsions,  in  certain  instances,  pro¬ 
duced  a  removal  of  disorders  depending  upon  obstructions.  We 
shall,  at  this  day,  have  the  less  difficulty  in  admitting  the  above  ac¬ 
count,  because  it  is  the  very  same  thing  as  hath  lately  been  expe¬ 
rienced  in  the  operations  of  animal  ma^etism ;  and  the  report  of 
the  French  physicians  upon  that  mysterious  remedy  is  very  applica¬ 
ble  to  the  present  consideration,  viz.  that  the  pretenders  to  the  art, 
by  working  upon  the  imaginations  of  their  patients,  were  frequently 
able  to  produce  convulsions;  that  convulsions  so  produced,  are 
amongst  the  most  powerful,  but,  at  the  same  time,  most  uncertain 
and  unmanageable  applications  to  the  human  frame  which  can  be 
employed. 

Circumstances,  which  indicate  this  explication  in  the  case  of  the 
Parisian  miracles,  are  the  following : 

1.  They  were  tentative.  Out  of  many  thousand  sick,  infirm,  and 
diseased  persons,  who  resorted  to  the  tomb,  the  professed  history  of 
the  miracles  contains  only  nine  cures. 


*  Liv.  iv.  A.  D.  1654. 


133 


Evidences  of  Christianity- 

2.  Tlie  convulsions  at  the  tomb  are  admitted. 

3.  The  diseases  were,  for  the  most  part,  of  that  sort  which  de¬ 
pends  upon  inaction  and  obstruction,  as  dropsies,  palsies,  and  some 
tumors. 

4.  The  cures  were  gradual ;  some  patients  attending  many  days, 
some  several  w'eeks,  and  some  several  months. 

5.  The  cures  were  many  of  them  incomplete. 

6.  Others  were  temporary.* 

So  that  all  the  w^onder  we  are  called  upon  to  account  for,  is,  that, 
out  of  an  almost  innumerable  multitude  which  resorted  to  the  tomb 
for  the  cure  of  their  complaints,  and  many  of  whom  were  there 
agitated  by  strong  convulsions,  a  very  small  proportion  experienced 
a  beneficial  change  in  their  constitution,  especially  in  the  action  of 
the  nerves  and  glands. 

Some  of  the  cases  alleged,  do  not  require  that  we  should  have 
recourse  to  this  solution.  The  first  case  in  the  catalogue  is  scarcely 
distinguishable  from  the  progress  of  a  natural  recovery.  It  was  that 
^  j  man,  who  labored  under  an  inflammation  of  one  eye, 

and  had  lost  the  sight  of  the  other.  The  inflamed  eye  was  relieved, 
but  the  blindness  of  the  other  remained.  The  inflammation  had 
before  been  abated  by  medicine ;  and  the  young  man,  at  the  lime 
of  his  attendance  at  the  tomb,  was  using  a  lotion  of  laudanum, 
i^id,  what  is  a  still  more  material  part  of  the  case,  the  inflammation 
after  some  interval  returned.  Another  case  was  that  of  a  young 
nian  who  had  lost  his  sight  by  the  puncture  of  an  awl,  and  the  dis¬ 
charge  of  the  aqueous  humor  through  the  wound.  The  sight,  which 
S^'^dually  returning,  was  much  improved  during  his  visit 
to  the  tomb,  that  is,  probably,  in  the  same  degree  in  which  the  dis¬ 
charged  humor  was  replaced  by  fresh  secretions.  And  it  is  observ¬ 
able,  that  these  two  are  the  only  cases  which,  from  their  nature, 
should  seem  unlikely  to  be  affected  by  convulsions, 
j  material  respect  I  allow  that  the  Parisian  miracles  were 

different  from  those  related  by  Tacitus,  and  from  the  Spanish  mira¬ 
cle  of  the  cardinal  de  Retz.  They  had  not,  like  them,  all  the  power 
Md  all  the  prejudice  of  the  country  on  their  side  to  begin  with. 
They  were  alleged  Iw  one  party  against  another,  by  the  Jansenists 
against  the  Jesuits.  These  were  of  course  opposed  and  examined 
%  their  adversaries.  The  consequence  of  which  examination  was, 
that  many  falsehoods  were  detected,  that  with  something  really 
extraordinary  much  fraud  appeared  to  be  mixed.  And  if  some  of 
the  cases  upon  which  designed  misrepresentation  could  not  be 
charged,  were  not  at  the  time  satisfactorily  accounted  for,  it  was 
because  the  efficacy  of  strong  spasmodic  affections  was  not  then 
sufficiently  known.  Finally,  the  cause  of  Jansenism  did  not  rise  by 
the  miracles,  but  sunk,  although  the  miracles  had  the  anterior  per¬ 
suasion  of  all  the  numerous  adherents  of  that  cause  to  set  out  with. 


*  The  reader  will  find  these  particulars  verified  in  the  detail,  by  the 
accurate  inquiries  of  the  present  bishop  of  Saruni,  in  his  Criterion  of 
Miracles,  p.  132,  &c. 


M 


134  Foley’s  View  of  the 

These,  let  us  remember,  are  the  strongest  examples,  which  the 
nistory  of  ages  supplies.  In  none  of  them  was  the  miracle  unequivo¬ 
cal  ;  by  none  of  them,  were  established  prejudices  and  persuasions 
overthrown;  of  none  of  them,  did  the  credit  make  its  way,  in  oppo¬ 
sition  to  authority  and  pow'er ;  by  none  of  them,  were  many  induced 
to  commit  themselves,  and  that  in  contradiction  to  prior  opinions,  to 
a  life  of  mortification,  danger,  and  sufferings ;  none  were  called 
upon  to  attest  them,  at  the  expense  of  their  fortunes  and  safety.* 


*  It  may  be  thought  that  the  historian  of  the  Parisian  miracles,  M. 
Montgeron,  forms  an  exception  to  this  last  assertion.  He  presented  his 
book  (with  a  suspicion,  as  it  should  seem,  of  the  danger  of  what  he  was 
doing)  to  the  king-;  and  was  shortly  afterward  committed  to  prison,  from 
which  he  never  came  out.  Had  the  miracles  been  unequivocal,  and  had 
M.  Montgeron  been  originally  convinced  by  them,  I  should  have  allowed 
this  exception.  It  would  have  stood,  I  think,  alone,  in  the  argument  of 
our  adversaries.  But,  beside  what  has  been  observed  of  the  dubious  na¬ 
ture  of  the  miracles,  the  account  which  M.  Montgeron  has  himself  left 
of  his  conversion,  shows  both  the  state  of  his  mind,  and  that  his  persua-  | 
sion  was  not  built  upon  external  miracles. — ‘  Scarcely  had  he  entered  the  ' 
churchyard,  when  he  was  struck  (he  tells  us)  with  awe  and  reverence, 
having  never  before  heard  prayers  pronounced  with  so  much  ardor  and 
transport  as  he.  observed  amongst  the  supplicants  at  the  tomb.  Upon 
this,  throwing  himself  on  his  knees,  resting  his  elbows  on  the  tomb-stone,  i 
and  covering  his  face  with  his  hands,  he  spake  the  following  prayer:— 
O  thou  by  whose  intercession  so  many  miracles  are  said  to  be  performed,  if  it 
be  true  that  apart  of  thee  surviveth  the  grave,  and  that  thou  hast  influence 
with  the  Almighty,  have  pity  on  the  darkness  of  my  understanding,  and 
through  his  mercy  obtain  the  removal  of  it.'  Having  thus  prayed,  ‘  many 
thoughts  (as  he  saith)  began  to  open  themselves  to  his  mind  ;  and  so  pro- ' 
found  was  his  attention,  that  he  continued  on  his  knees  four  hours, 
not  in  the  least  disturbed  by  the  vast  crowd  of  surrounding  supplicants. 
During  this  time,  all  the  arguments  which  he  ever  heard  or  read  in  favor 
of  Christianity,  occurred  to  him  with  so  much  force,  and  seemed  so  strong 
and  convincing,  that  he  went  home  fully  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  religion ; 
in  general,  and  of  the  holiness  and  power  of  that  person,  who  (as  he  sup¬ 
posed)  had  engaged  the  Divine  Goodness  to  enlighten  lus  understanding 
so  suddenly.’  Douglas’s  Crit.  of  Mir.  p.  214. 


PART  II. 

OF  THE  AUXILIARY  EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


CHAP.  1. 

--  Prophecy. 

Isaiah  lii.  13.  liii.  ‘Behold,  my  Servant  shall  deal  prudently;  he 
shall  be  exalted  and  extolled,  and  be  very  high.  As  many  as  were 
astonished  at  thee  (his  visage  was  so  marred  more  than  any  man, 
and  his  form  more  than  the  sons  of  men) ;  so  shall  he  sprinkle  many 
nations ;  the  kings  shall  shut  their  mouths  at  him :  for  that  which 
had  not  been  told  them,  shall  they  see ;  and  that  which  they  had 
not  heard,  shall  they  consider. — ^Who  hath  believed  our  report?  and 
to  whom  is  the  arm  of  the  Lord  revealed  ?  For  he  shall  grow  up 
before  him  as  a  tender  plant,  and  as  a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground  :  he 
hath  no  form  nor  comeliness ;  and  when  we  shall  see  him,  there  is 
no  beauty  that  we  should  desire  him.  He  is  despised  and  rejected 
of  men,  a  man  of  sorrows,  and  acquainted  with  grief:  and  we  hid, 
as  it  were,  our  faces  from  him ;  he  was  despised,  and  we  esteemed 
him  not.  Surely  he  hath  borne  our  griefs,  and  carried  our  sorrows : 
vet  we  did  esteem  him  stricken,  smitten  of  God  and  afflicted.  But 
he  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our  ini¬ 
quities  :  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  w'as  upon  him;  and  with  his 
stripes  we  are  healed.  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray;  we 
have  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way ;  and  the  Lord  hath  laid  on 
him  the  iniquity  of  us  all.  He  was  oppressed,  and  he  was  afflicted, 
yet  he  opened  not  his  mouth :  he  is  brought  as  a  iamb  to  the  slaugh¬ 
ter,  and  as  a  sheep  before  her  shearers  is  dumb,  so  he  opened  not 
his  mouth.  He  was  taken  from  prison  and  from  judgment;  and  who 
shall  declare  his  generation  ?  for  he  was  cut  off  out  of  the  land  of 
the  living:  for  the  transgression  of  my  people,  was  he  stricken. 
And  he  made  his  grave  with  the  wicked,  and  with  the  rich  in  his 
death ;  because  he  had  done  no  violence,  neither  was  any  deceit  in 
his  mouth.  Yet  it  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise  him ;  he  hath  put  him 
to  grief  When  thou  shalt  make  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin,  he  shall 
see  his  seed,  he  shall  prolong  his  days,  and  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord 
shall  prosper  in  his  hand.  He  shall  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul, 
and  shall  be  satisfied :  by  his  knowledge  shall  my  righteous  servant 
justify  many;  for  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities.  Therefore  will  I 
divide  him  a  portion  with  the  great,  and  he  shall  divide  the  spoil 
with  the  strong;  because  he  hath  poured  out  his  soul  unto  death: 
and  he  was  numbered  with  the  transgressors,  and  he  bare  the  sin 
of  many  and  made  intercession  for  the  transgressors.’ 


136  Paley’s  View  of  the 

These  words  are  extant  in  a  book,  purporting  to  contain  the  pre¬ 
dictions  of  a  writer  who  lived  seven  centuries  before  the  Christian 

^'^That  material  part  of  every  argument  from  prophecy,  namely,  that 
the  words  alleged  were  actually  spoken  or  written  before  the  fact 
to  which  they  are  applied  took  place,  or  could  by  any  natural  means 
be  foreseen,  is,  in  the  present  instance,  incontestable.  The  record 
comes  out  of  the  custody  of  adversaries.  The  Jews,  as  a,n  ancient 
father  well  observed,  are  our  librarians.  The  passage  is  in  their 
copies,  as  well  as  in  ours.  With  many  attempts  to  explain  it  away, 
none  has  ever  been  made  by  them  to  discredit  its  authenticity. 

And,  what  adds  to  the  force  of  the  quotation  is,  that  it  is  taken 
from  a  working  declaredly  prophetic  ;  a  writing,  professing  to  describe 
such  future  transactions  and  changes  in  the  world,  as  were  con¬ 
nected  with  the  fate  and  interests  of  the  Jewish  nation.  It  is  not 
a  passage  in  an  historical  or  devotional  composition,  which,  because 
it  turns  out  to  be  applicable  to  some  future  events,  or  to  some  future 
situation  of  affairs,  is  presumed  to  have  been  oracular.  The  words 
of  Isaiah  were  delivered  by  him  in  a  prophetic  character,  with  the 
solemnity  belonging  to  that  character :  and  what  he  so  delivered, 
was  all  along  understood  by  the  Jewish  reader  to  refer  to  sometlung 
that  was  to  take  place  after  the  time  of  the  author.  The  public 
sentiments  of  the  Jews  concerning  the  design  of  Isaiah’s  writings, 
are  set  forth  in  the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus  :*  ‘  He  saw  by  an  excel¬ 
lent  spirit,  what  should  come  to  pass  at  the  last,  and  he  comforted 
them  that  mourned  in  Sion.  He  showed  what  should  come  to  pass 
for  ever,  and  secret  things  or  ever  they  came.’  , 

It  is  also  an  advantage  which  this  prophecy  possesses,  that  it  is 
intermixed  with  no  other  subject.  It  is  entire,  separate,  and  unin- 
terruptedly  directed  to  one  scene  of  things. 

'fhe  application  of  the  prophecy  to  the  evangelic  history  is  plain 
and  appropriate.  Here  is  no  double  sense  ^  no  figurative  language, 
but  what  is  sufficiently  intelligible  to  every  reader  of  every  country. 
The  obscurities  (by  which  I  mean  the  expressions  that  require  .a 
knowledge  of  local  diction,  and  of  local  allusion)  are  few,  and  not 
of  great  importance.  Nor  have  I  found  that  varieties  of  reading,  or 
a  different  construing  of  the  original,  produce  any  material  alteration 
in  the  sense  of  the  prophecy.  Compare  the  common  translation 
with  that  of  bishop  Lowth,  and  the  difference  is  not  considerable., 
So  far  as  they  do  differ,  bishop  Lowth’s  corrections,  which  are  the 
faithful  result  of  an  accurate  examination,  bring  the  description 
nearer  to  the  New  Testament  history  than  it  was  before.  In  the 
fourth  verse  of  the  fifty-third  chapter,  what  our  Bible  renders 
‘stricken,’  he  translates  ‘judicially  stricken;’  and  in  the  eighth 
verse,  the  clause,  ‘he  was  taken  from  prison  and  from  judgmeik,^ 
the  bishop  gives,  ‘  by  an  oppressive  judgment  he  was  taken  off 
The  next  words  to  these,  ‘who  shall  declare  his  generation?’  are 
much  cleared  up  in  their  meaning  by  the  bishop’s  version;  ‘his 


*  Chap,  xlviii.  ver.  24. 


Evidences  of  Christianity,  1B1' 

manner  of  life  who  would  declare  V  i.  e.  who  would  stand  forth 
in  his  defence  ?  The  former  part  of  the  ninth  verse,  ‘  and  he  made 
his  grave  with  the  wicked,  and  with  the  rich  in  his  death,’  which 
inverts  the  circumstances  of  Christ’s  passion,  the  bishop  brings  out  in 
an  order  perfectly  agreeable  to  the  event;  ‘and  his  grave  was  ap- 
pomied  with  the  wucked,  but  with  the  rich  man  was  his  tomb.’  The 
words  in  the  eleventh  verse,  ‘  by  his  knowledge  shall  my  righteous 
servant  justify  many,’  are,  in  the  bishop’s  version,  ‘  by  the  knowledge 
of  lam  shall  my  righteous  servant  justify  many,’ 

It  is  natural  to  inquire  w'hat  turn  the  Jews  themselves  give  to 
this  prophecy.*  There  is  good  proof  that  the  ancient  Rabbins 
explained  it  of  their  expected  Messiah  ;t  but  their  modern  exposi¬ 
tors  concur,  I  think,  in  representing  it  as  a  description  of  the  calami¬ 
tous  state  and  intended  restoration  of  the  Jewish  people,  who  are 
here,  as  they  say,  exhibited  under  the  character  of  a  single  person. 
I  ha\e  not  discovered  that  their  exposition  rests  upon  any  critical 
arguments,  or  upon  these  in  any  other  than  a  very  minute  degree, 
fhe  clause  in  the  ninth  verse,  w’hich  we  render  ‘  for  the  transgres¬ 
sion  of  my  people  was  he  stricken,’  and  in  the  margin,  ‘w^as  the 
stroke  upon  him,’  the  Jews  read,  ‘for  the  transgression  of  my  people 
was  the  stroke  upon  them.'  And  what  they  allege  in  support  of  the 
alteration  amounts  only  to  this,  that  the  Hebrew  pronoun  is  capable 
of  a  plural  as  well  as  of  a  singular  signification ;  that  is  to  say,  is 
capable  of  their  construction  as  well  as  ours.f  And  this  is  all  the 


*  Yaticinium  hoc  Esaise  est  carniiicina  Rabbinorum,  de  quo  aliqui 
Judffii  mihi  confess!  sunt,  Rabbinos  suos  ex  propheticis  scripturis  facile 
se  extricare  potuisse,  modo  Esias  tacuisset.'  Hulse,  Theol.  Jud.  p  318 
quoted  by  Poole,  in  loc.  ’ 

t  Hulse,  Theol.  Jud.  430. 

J  Bisliop  Lovvth  adopts  in  tliis  place  the  reading  of  the  Seventy,  which 
gives  smitten  to  death,  ‘  for  the  transgression  of  my  people  was  he  smitten 
to  death.’  The  addition  of  the  words  ‘  to  death,’  makes  an  end  of  the 
Jewish  interpretation  of  the  clause.  And  the  authority  upon  which  this 
reading  (though  not  given  by  the  present  Hebrew  text)  is  adopted.  Dr. 
Kennicot  has  set  forth  by  an  argument  not  only  so  cogent,  but  so  clear 
and  popular,  that  I  beg  leave  to  transcribe  the  substance  of  it  into  this 
note;— ‘  Origen,  after  having  quoted  at  large  this  prophecy  concerning 
the  Messiah,  tells  us,  that,  having  once  made  use  of  this  passage,  in  a 
dispute  against  some  that  were  accounted  wise  among  the  Jews,  one  of 
them  replied  that  the  words  did  not  mean  one  man,  but  one  people,  the 
Jews,  who  were  smitten  of  God,  and  dispersed  among  the  Gentiles  for 
their  conversion  ;  that  he  then  urged  many  parts  of  this  prophecy,  tc 
show  the  absurdity  of  this  interpretation,  and  that  he  seemed  to  press 
them  the  hardest  by  this  sentence, — “  for  the  transgression  of  my  people 
was  he  smitten  to  death.”  Now,  as  Origen,  the  author  of  the  Hexa- 
pla,  must  have  understood  Hebrew,  we  cannot  suppose  that  he  would 
have  urged  this  last  text  as  so  decisive,  if  the  Greek  version  had  not 
agreed  here  with  the  Hebrew  text ;  nor  that  these  wise  Jews  would  have 
been  at  all  distressed  by  this  quotation,  unless  the  Hebrew  text  had  read 
agreeably  to  the  wmrds  “  to  death,”  on  which  the  argument  principally 
depended;  for,  by  quoting  it  immediatelv,  they  would  have  triumphed 
over  him,  and  reprobated  hi^reek  version.  This,  whenever  they  could 

25  M2 


188 


Paley^s  View  of  the 


variation  contended  for ;  the  rest  of  the  prophecy  they  read  as  we 
do.  The  probability,  therefore,  of  their  exposition,  ^  a.  sutyectot 
which  we  are  as  capable  of  judging  as  themselves.  This  jndgr^nt 
is  open  indeed  to  the  good  sense  of  every  attentive  reader.  1  he 
application  which  the  Jews  contend  for,  appears  to  me  to  labor 
under  insuperable  difficulties;  in  particular,  it  may  be  demanded 
of  them  to  explain,  in  whose  name  or  person,  if  the  Jewish  people 
be  the  sufferer,  does  the  prophet  speak  when  he  says.  He  hatn 
borne  our  griefs,  and  carried  our  sorrows,  yet  we  did  esteem  him 
stricken,  smitten  of  God,  and  afflicted ;  but  he  was  w-ounded  lor 
our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities,  the  chastise¬ 
ment  of  our  peace  w'as  upon  him,  and  with  his  stripes  we  are 
healed.’  Again,  the  description  in  the  seventh  verse,  ‘  he  w^as  op- 
pressed  and  he  was  afflicted,  yet  he  opened  not  his  mouth;  he  is 
brought  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter,  and  as  a  sheep  belore  her 
shearers  is  dumb,  so  he  opened  not  his  mouth,’  quadrates  with  no 
part  of  the  Jewish  history  with  which  we  are  acquainted.  Ihe 
mention  of  the  ‘  grave,’  and  the  ‘  tomb,’  in  the  ninth  verse,  is 
very  apphcable  to  the  fortunes  of  a  nation ;  and  still  less  so  is  the 
conclusion  of  the  prophecy  in  the  twelfth  verse,  which  expressly 
represents  the  sufferings  as  volunlary,  and  the  sufferer  as  interced¬ 
ing  for  the  offenders ;  ‘  because  he  hath  poured  out  his  soul  unto 
death,  and  he  was  numbered  with  the  transgressors,  and  he  bare- 
the  sin  of  many,  and  made  intercession  for  the  transgressors.  ' 

There  are  other  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  interpreted  by 
Christians  to  relate  to  the  Gospel  history,  wfflich  are  deserving 
both  of  great  regard,  and  of  a  very  attentive  consideration:  but  J 
content  myself  with  stating  the  above,  as  w'ell  because  I  think  v 
the  clearest  and  the  strongest  of  all,  as  because  most  of  the  rest,  ii 
order  that  their  value  might  be  represented  with  any  tolerable  de 
gree  of  fidelity,  require  a  discussion  unsuitable  to  the  limits  anc 
nature  of  this  work.  The  reader  will  find  them  disposed  in  order 
and  distinctly  explained,  in  bishop  Chandler  s  treatise  on  the  sub 
ject:  and  he  will  bear  in  mind,  what  has  been  often,  and,  I  thinh 
truly,  urged  by  the  advocates  of  Christianity,  that  there  is  no  othe 
eminent  person,  to  the  history  of  whose  life  so  many  ciiciimstance. 
can  be  made  to  apply-  They  who  object  that  much  has  been  don. 
by  the  power  of  chance,  the  ingenuity  of  accommodation,  and  th. 
industry  of  research,  ought  to  try  whether  the  same,  or  any  thinj 


do  it,  was  their  constant  practice  in  their  disputes  with  the  Christians 
Origen  himself,  who  laboriously  compared  the  Hebrew  text  with  the  Sej 
tuagint,  has  recorded  the  necessity  of  argniing  with  the  Jews,  fi'om  sue 
passages  only  as  were  in  the  Septuagint  agreeable  to  the 
Wherefore,  as  Origen  had  carefully  compared  the  Greek  version  of  th 
Septuagint  with  the  Hebrew  text;  and  as  he  puzzled  and  confbnnde 
the  learned  J.ews,  by  urging  upon  them  the  reading  to  ckath,  in  thi 
place;  it  seems  almost  impossible  not  to  conclude,  both  fiom 
argument,  and  the  silence  of  his  Jewish  adversaries  that  the  Hebrei 
text  at  that  time  actually  had  the  word  agreeably  to  the  version  of  th 
Seventy  ’  Cowth’s  Isaiah,  p.  243. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  139 

like  it,  could  be  done,  if  Mahomet,  or  any  other  person,  were  pro¬ 
posed  as  the  subject  of  Jewish  prophecy.  ^ 

II.  A  second  head  of  argument  from  prophecy,  is  founded  upon 
our  Lord  s  predictions  concerning  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  re¬ 
corded  by  three  out  of  the  four  evangelists.  ' 

Luke  xxi.  5 — 25.  ‘  And  as  some  spake  of  the  temple,  how  it  was 
adorned  with  goodly  stones  and  gifts,  he  said.  As  for  these  things 
which  ye  behold,  the  days  will  come,  in  which  there  shall  not  be 
left  one  stone  upon  another,  that  shall  not  be  thrown  down.  And 
they  asked  him,  saying.  Master,  but  when  shall  these  things  be  ? 
and  what  sign  will  there  be  when  these  things  shall  come  to  pass? 
And  he  said,  Take  heed  that  ye  be  not  deceived,  for  many  shall 
come  in  my  name,  saying,  I  am  Christ ;  and  the  time  draweth  near  • 
go  ve  therefore  not  after  them.  But  when  ye  shall  hear  of  wars 
and  commotions,  be  not  terriiied :  for  these  things  must  first  come  to 
}^ss ;  but  the  end  is  not  by-and-by.  Then  said  he  unto  them.  Na¬ 
tion  shall  rise  against  nation,  and  kingdom  against  kingdom ;  and 
great  earthquakes  shall  be  in  divei*s  places,  and  famines  and  pesti¬ 
lences  5  3nd  fearful  sights,  and  great  signs  shall  there  be  from  heaven. 
But  before  all  these,  they  shall  lay  their  hands  on  you,  and  perse¬ 
cute  you,  delivering  you  up  to  the  synagogues,  and  into  prisons,  be- 
ing  brought  before  lungs  and  rulers  for  my  name’s  sake.  And  it 
shall  turn  to  you  for  a  testimony.  Settle  it  therefore  in  your  hearts 
not  to  meditate  before,  what  ye  shall  answer;  for  I  will  give  you  a 
mouth  and  wisdom,  which  all  your  adversaries  shall  not  be  able  to 
gainsay  nor  resist.  And  ye  shall  be  betrayed  both  by  parents,  and 
brethren,  and  kinsfolk,  and  friends ;  and  some  of  you  shall  they 
cause  to  be  put  to  death.  And  ye  shall  be  hated  of  all  men  for  my 
narne  s  sake.  But  there  shall  not  a  hair  of  your  head  perish.  In  your 
patience  possess  ye  your  souls.  And  when  ye  shall  see  Jerusalem 
compassed  with  armies,  then  know  that  the  desolation  thereof  is 
nigh.  Then  let  them  which  are  in  Judea  flee  to  the  mountains ;  and 
let  them  which  are  in  the  midst  of  it  depart  out:  and  let  not  them 
that  are  in  the  countries  enter  thereinto.  For  these  be  the  days  of 
vengeance,  that  all  things  which  are  written  may  be  fulfilled.  But 
woe  unto  them  that  are  with  child,  and  to  them  that  give  suck,  in 
those  days  :  for  there  shall  be  great  distress  in  the  land,  and  wrath 
upon  this  people.  And  they  shall  fall  by  the  edge  of  the  sw'ord,  and 
shall  be  led  away  captive  into  all  nations:  and  Jerusalem  shall  be 
trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles,  until  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  be 
fulfilled.’ 

In  terms  nearly  similar,  this  discourse  is  related  in  the  twenty- 
ourth  chapter  of  Matthew,  and  the  thirteenth  of  Mark.  The  pros- 
evils  drew  from  our  Saviour,  on  another  occasion, 
he  following  affecting  expressions  of  concern,  which  are  preserved 
baint  Luke  (xix.  41 — 44.) :  ‘And  when  he  was  come  near,  he  be- 
leld  the  city,  and  wept  over  it,  saying.  If  thou  hadst  known,  even 
ou,  at  least  in  this  thy  day,  the  things  which  belong  unto  thy 
)eace !  but  now  they  are  hid  from  thine  eyes.  For  the  days  shall 
■ome  upon  thee,  that  thine  enemies  .shall  cast  a  trench  about  thee, 


140 


Paley's  View  of  the 


and  compass  thee  round,  and  keep  thee  in  on  every  side,  and  shall 
lay  thee  even  with  the  ground,  and  thy  children  within  thee ,  and 
the V  shall  not  leave  in  thee  one  stone  upon  another;  because  thou 
knewest  not  the  time  of  thy  visitation.’-These  passages  are  direct 
and  explicit  predictions.  References  to  the  same  event,  some  plain, 
some  parabolical,  or  otherwise  figurative,  are  found  m  divers  other 

^^The^^genm-S^^eement  of  the  description  with  the  event,  viz 
with  the  ruin  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  the  capture  of  Jerusalem 
under  Vespasian,  thirty-six  years  after  Christs  death, 
dent;  and  the  accordancy  in  various  articles  of  detail  and  circum 
stances  has  been  shown  by  many  learned  writers.  It  is  also  an 
vantage  to  the  inquiry,  and  to  the  argument  built  upon  it,  that  we 
have  received  a  copious  account  of  the  transaction  from  Josephus, 
a  Jewish  and  contemporary  historian.  This  part  of  ‘ 

fectlv  free  from  doubt.  The  only  question  which,  in  my  opinion, 
can  L  raised  upon  the  subject,  is  whether  the  prophecy  was  really 
delivered  before  the  event;  I  shall  apply, therefore,  my  observations 

*  The  judgment  of  antiquity,  though  varying  in  the 
of  the  publication  of  the  three  Gospels,  coiicurs  m  assigmng  them  a 

date  prior  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  t  nrisiinp 

2.  This  judgment  is  confirmed  by  a  strong  probability  a^is  8 
from  the  course  of  human  life.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  took 
place  in  the  seventieth  year  after  the  birth  of  Christ.  The  three 
Langelists,  one  of  xvhom  was  his  immediate  ^ 

other  two  associated  with  his  companions,  were,  it 
much  vounger  than  he  was.  They  must,  consequently,  have  been 
far  advanced  in  life  when  Jerusalem  was  taken ;  and  no  reason  . 

been  gTven  why  they  should  defer  writing 

3  t  If  the  evangelists,  at  the  time  of  writing  the  Gospels,  nac 
known  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  by  which  ^ 

prophecies  were  plainly  fulfilled,  it  is  most  probable,  that,  in  record 
PngTe  presto,  th/y  wottld  have  =ome  word  J  othe 

atout  the  completion;  in  like  manner  as  ““f 

denunciation  of  a  dearth  by  Agabus,  adds,  which  came  to  pass  ii 
the  days  of  Claudius  Caesar  whereas  the  prophecies  are  gtvei 
SstSy  ?i  bne  chapter  of  each  of  the  first  thre®  gospels  and  r 
ferred  to  in  several  different  Passages  of  each,  and,  m  none  ot 
these  places,  does  there  appear  the 

things  spoken  of  had  come  to  pass.  I  do  admit,  that  fjvould  h 
been  the  part  of  an  impostor  who  wished  h\" 
that  his  book  was  written  before  the  event,  ^hen  m  truth  it  w 

written  after  it,  to  have  suppressed  any  such  ^  CuJ 

But  this  was  not  the  character  of  the  authors  of  the  Gospel.  Uun 


*  Matt.  xxi.  33-46.  xxii.  1-7.  Mark  xii  i_i2.  Luke  xiii.  1-9.  xn 

Q _ rtQ  5 _ ]3  t  VOl.  Xlll* * * § 

J  Le  Clerc,  Diss.  111.  do  auat.  Evang.  num.  vii.  p.  541. 

§  .'^cts  xi.  28, 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  141 

ning  was  no  quality  of  theirs.  Of  all  writers  in  the  world,  they 
lliought  the  least  of  providing  against  objections.  Moreover,  there  is 
no  clause  in  any  one  of  them,  that  makes  a  profession  of  their 
having  written  prior  to  the  Jewish  wars,  which  a  fraudulent  pur¬ 
pose  would  have  led  them  to  pretend.  They  have  done  neither 
one  thing  nor  the  other:  they  have  neither  inserted  any  w^ords 
which  might  signify  to  the  reader  that  their  accounts  were  written 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  w'hich  a  sophist  would  have 
done ;  nor  have  they  dropped  a  hint  of  the  completion  of  the  prophe¬ 
cies  recorded  by  them,  which  an  undesiseTiing  writer,  writing  after 
the  event,  could  hardly,  on  some  or  other  of  the  many  occasions 
that  presented  themselves,  have  missed  of  doing. 

4.  The  admonitions*  which  Christ  is  represented  to  have  given 
to  his  followrers  to  save  themselves  by  flight,  are  not  easily  ac¬ 
counted  for,  on  the  supposition  of  the  prophecy  being  fabricated 
after  the  event.  Either  the  Christians,  when  the  siege  approached, 
did  make  their  escape  from  Jerusalem,  or  they  did  not :  if  they  did, 
they  must  have  had  the  prophecy  amongst  them :  if  they  did  not 
know  of  any  such  prediction  at  the  time  of  the  siege,  if  they  did 
not  take  notice  of  any  such  warning,  it  was  an  improbable  fiction, 
in  a  w'riter  publishing  his  work  near  to  that  time  (which,  on  any, 
even  the  lowest  and  most  disadvantageous  supposition,  was  the  case 
with  the  Gospels  now  in  our  hands),  and  addressing  his  w'orks  to 
Tews  and  to  Jewish  converts  (which  Matthew- certainly  did),  to  state 
that  the  followers  of  Christ  had  received  admonition,  of  which  they 
made  no  use  when  the  occasion  arrived,  and  of  which  experience 
then  recent  proved,  that  those,  who  w'ere  most  concerned  to  know 
and  regard  them,  were  ignorant  or  negligent.  Even  if  the  prophe¬ 
cies  came  to  the  hands  of  the  evangelists  through  no  better  vehicle 
than  tradition,  it  must  have  been  by  a  tradition  which  subsisted 
prior  to  the  event.  And  to  suppose  that,  without  any  authority 
whatever,  without  so  much  as  even  any  tradition  to  guide  them, 
they  had  forged  these  passages,  is  to  impute  to  them  a  degree  of 
fraud  and  imposture,  from  every  appearance  of  which  their  compo¬ 
sitions  are  as  far  removed  as  possible. 

6.  I  think  that,  if  the  prophecies  had  been  composed  after  the 
event,  there  would  have  been  more  specification.  The  names  or 
descriptions  of  the  enemy,  the  general,  the  emperor,  would  have 
been  found  in  them.  The  designation  of  the  time  w^ould  have  been 
more  determinate.  And  I  am  fortified  in  this  opinion  by  observing, 
that  the  counterfeited  prophecies  of  the  Sibylline  oracles,  of  the 
twmlve  patriarchs,  and  I  am  inclined  to  believe,  most  others  of  the 

*‘When  ye  shall  see  Jerusalem  compassed  with  armies,  then  know 
;hat  the  desolation  thereof  is  nigh;  then  let  them  which  are  in  Judea  flee 
to  the  mountains;  then  let  them  w'hich  are  in  the  midst  of  it  depart  out, 
nid  let  not  them  that  are  in  the  countries  enter  thereinto.’  Luke  xxi.2(),21. 

‘When  ye  shall  see  .lerusalem  compassed  with  armies,  then  let  them 
fthichbe  in  Judea  flee  unto  the  mountains ;  let  him  which  is  on  Ihehouse- 
mp  not  come  down  to  take  any  thing  out  of  his  house  ;  neither  let  him 
which  is  in  the  field  return  back  to  take  his  clothes.’  Matt.  xiv.  18. 


142 


Foley's  View  of  the 


kind,  are  mere  transcripts  of  the  history,  moulded  into  a  prophetic 
form. 


'  obiected  that  the  prophecy  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 

bea?hX?  not 

concern  our  present  argurnent.  ^  although  we  should 


CHAP.  IT. 


The  Morality  of  the  Gospel. 


wS’dfsStaTvery  few  words  the  scope  of  Christianity! 

„s'a"rerw“-TidsayXtitw^^^^ 

Object,  therefore  of  the  df 

mo“‘in"need  of  Thrmembet  of  civilized  society  can,  in  all  ordt 

sKXtt<:»iri!  rsti  s  SiSt'Sj 

evidence  of  that  state,  they  want  a  motive  to  their  duly  ’  ^  , 

at  least  strength  of  motive,  sufficient  to  I*”  “g'™' Th„fr  rule 


fr  XA^X^i'ed, 

happiness,  perhaps  the  future  ex  .  .  ueDcnil  upon  it,  or  he  procure! 
terms  of  acceptance  extended  to  all,  inigiit  •^'•^’cnu  upuu  '  ’  '  ^ 

liii'ty  aXrSll^ Saj£'Si“elK?ii  l^s^S  t^SeS  Sdioi, 

it  is  not  revealed. 


143 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

to  human  life,  and  that  consequently,  which,  one  might  expect  be¬ 
forehand,  wmuld  be  the  great  end  and  office  of  a  revelation  from 
God,  is  to  convey  to  the  w'orld  authorized  assurances  of  the  reality 
of  a  future  existence.  And  although  in  doing  this,  or  by  the  min¬ 
istry  of  the  same  person  by  whom  this  is  done,  moral  precepts  or 
examples,  or  illustrations  of  moral  precepts,  may  be  occasionally 
given,  and  be  highly  valuable,  yet  still  they  do  not  form  the  original 
purpose  of  the  mission. 

Secondly ;  morality,  neither  in  the  Gospel,  nor  in  any  otlier  book, 
can  be  a  subject  of  discovery,  properly  so  called.  By  which  propo¬ 
sition,  I  mean  that  there  cannot,  in  morality,  be  any  thing  similar  to 
what  are  called  discoveries  in  natural  philosophy,  in  the  arts  of  life, 
and  in  some  sciences  ;  as  the  system  of  the  universe,  the  circulation 
of  the  blood,  the  polarity  of  the  magnet,  the  laws  of  gravitation, 
alphabetical  writing,  decimal  arithmetic,  and  some  other  things  of 
the  same  sort ;  facts,  or  proofs,  or  contrivances,  before  totally  un 
known  and  un  thought  of.  Whoever,  therefore,  expects,  in  reading 
the  New'  Testament,  to  be  struck  with  discoveries  in  morals  in  the 
manner  in  which  his  mind  was  affected  when  he  first  came  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  discoveries  above-mentioned ;  or  rather  in  the 
manner  in  w'hich  the  world  was  affected  by  them,  when  they  were 
first  published;  expects  what,  as  I  apprehend,  the  nature  of  the 
subject  renders  it  impossible  that  he  should  meet  with.  And  the 
foundation  of  my  opinion  is  this,  that  the  qualities  of  actions  depend 
entirely  upon  their  effects,  which  effects  must  all  along  have  been 
the  subject  of  human  experience. 

When  it  is  once  settled,  no  matter  upon  what  principle,  tliat  to  do 
good  is  virtue,  the  rest  is  calculation.  But  since  the  calculation 
cannot  be  instituted  concerning  each  particular  action,  we  estab¬ 
lish  intermediate  rules  ;  by  w’hich  proceeding,  the  business  of  mo¬ 
rality  is  much  facilitated,  for  then  it  is  concerning  our  rules  alone 
that  we  need  inquire,  whether  in  their  tendency  they  be  beneficial; 
concerning  our  actions,  we  have  only  to  ask,  whether  they  be  agree¬ 
able  to  the  rules.  We  refer  actions  to  rules,  and  rules  to  public 
happiness.  Now,  in  the  formation  of  these  rules,  there  is  no  place 
for  discovery,  properly  so  called,  but  there  is  ample  room  for  the  ex¬ 
ercise  of  wisdom,  judgment,  and  prudence. 

As  I  wish  to  deliver  argument  rather  than  panegyric,  I  shall  treat; 
of  the  morality  of  the  Gospel,  in  subjection  to  these  observations. 
And  after  all,  I  think  it  such  a  morality,  as,  considering  from  whom 
it  came,  is  most  extraordinary  ;  and  such  as,  without  allowing  some 
degree  of  reality  to  fixe  character  and  pretensions  of  the  religion,  it 
is  difficult  to  account  for ;  or,  to  place  the  argument  a  little  lower 
in  the  scmle,  it  is  such  a  morality  as  completely  repels  the  supposi¬ 
tion  of  its  being  the  tradition  of  a  barbarous  age  or  of  a  barbarous 
people,  of  the  religion  being  founded  in  folly,  or  of  its  being  the 
production  of  craft ;  and  it  repels  also,  in  a  great  degree,  the  sup¬ 
position  of  its  having  been  the  effusion  of  an  enthusiastic  mind. 

The  division,  under  which  the  subject  may  be  most  conveniently 
treated,  is  that  of  the  things  taught,  and  the  manner  of  teaching. 


144 


Foley’s  View  of  the 

Under  the  first  head,  I  should  willingly,  if  the  limits  and  nature 
of  my  work  admitted  of  it,  transcribe  into  this  chapter  the  whole  of  : 
what  has  been  said  upon  the  morality  of  the  Gospel,  by  the  author 
of  The  Infernal  Evidence  of  Christianity  ;  because  it  perfectly 
agrees  with  my  own  opinion,  and  because  it  is  impossible  to  say  the 
same  things  so  welt.  This  acute  observer  of  human  nature,  and,  as 
I  believe,  sincere  convert  to  Christianity,  appears  to  me  to  have 
made  out  satisfactorily  the  two  following  positions,  viz. 

I.  That  the  Gospel  omits  some  qualities,  w'hich  have  usually  em 
gaged  the  praises  and  admiration  of  mankind,  but  which,  in  reality, 
and  in  their  general  effects,  have  been  prejudicial  to  human  happi¬ 
ness. 

II.  That  the  Gospel  has  brought  forward  some  virtues,  which 
possess  the  highest  intrinsic  value,  but  which  have  commonly  been 

verlooked  and  contemned. 

The  first  of  these  propositions  he  exemplifies  in  the  instances  of 
friendship,  patriotism,  active  courage  ;  in  the  sense  in  which  these 
qualities  are  usually  understood,  and  in  the  conduct  which  they 
often  produce. 

The  second,  in  the  instances  of  passive  courage  or  endurance  of 
sufferings,  patience  under  affronts  and  injuries,  humility,  irresist- 
ance,  placability. 

The  truth  is,  there  are  two  opposite  descriptions  of  character,  un¬ 
der  which  mankind  may  generally  be  classed.  The  one  possesses  I 
vigor,  firmness,  resolution  ;  is  daring  and  active,  quick  in  its  sensi¬ 
bilities,  jealous  of  its  fame,  eager  in  its  attachments,  inflexible  in  its 
purpose,  violent  in  its  resentments. 

The  other,  meek,  yielding,  complying,  forgiving ;  not  prompt  to 
act,  but  willing  to  suffer ;  silent  and  gentle  under  nidoness  and  in¬ 
sult,  suing  for  reconciliation  where  others  w'ould  demand  satisfac¬ 
tion,  giving  way  to  the  pushes  of  impudence,  conceding  and  indul¬ 
gent  to  the  prejudices,  the  wrongheadedness,  the  intractability,  of 
those  with  whom  it  has  to  deal. 

The  former  of  these  characters  is,  and  ever  hath  been,  the  favorite 
of  the  world.  It  is  the  character  of  great  men.  There  is  a  dignity 
in  it  which  universally  commands  respect. 

The  latter  is  poor-spirited,  tame,  and  abject.  Yet  so  it  hath  hap¬ 
pened,  that,  with  the  Founder  of  Christianity,  this  latter  is  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  his  commendation,  his  precepts,  his  examples ;  and  that  the  i 
former  is  so,  in  no  part  of  its  composition.  This  and  nothing  else,  is 
the  character  designed  in  the  following  remarkable  passages :  ‘  Re¬ 
sist  not  evil ;  but  whosoever  shall  smite  thee  on  the  right  cheek, 
turn  to  him  the  other  also  :  and  if  any  man  will  sue  thee  at  the  law, 
and  take  away  thy  coat,  let  him  have  thy  cloak  also :  and  whosoever 
shall  compel  thee  to  go  a  mile,  go  with  him  tw^ain :  love  your  ene¬ 
mies,  bless  them  that  curse  you,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you,  and 
pray  for  them  which  despitefully  use  you  and  persecute  you.’  This 
certainly  is  not  common-place  morality,  ft  is  very  original.  It 
shows  at  least  (and  it  is  for  this  purpose  we  produce  it)  that  tio  two 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  145 

things  can  be  more  different  than  the  Heroic  and  the  Christian 
character. 

Now  the  author,  to  whom  I  refer,  has  not  only  marked  this  differ¬ 
ence  more  strongly  than  any  preceding  writer,  but  has  proved,  in 
contradiction  to  first  impressions,  to  popular  opinion,  to  the  encomi¬ 
ums  of  oratoi-s  and  poets,  and  even  to  the  suffrages  of  historians  and 
moralists,  that  the  latter  character  possesses  the  most  of  true  worth, 
both  as  being  most  difficult  either  to  be  acquired  or  sustained,  and 
as  contributing  most  to  the  happiness  and  tranquillity  of  social  life. 
The  state  of  his  argument  is  as  follows : 

I.  If  this  disposition  were  universal,  the  case  is  clear ;  the  worl 
would  be  a  society  of  friends-  Whereas,  if  the  other  disposition 
were  universal,  it  would  produce  a  scene  of  universal  contention. 
The  w'orld  could  not  hold  a  generation  of  such  men. 

II.  If,  what  is  the  fact,  the  disposition  be  partial;  if  a  few  be 
actuated  by  it,  amongst  a  multitude  who  are  not ;  in  whatever  de¬ 
gree  it  does  prevail,  in  the  same  proportion  it  prevents,  allays,  and 
terminates,  quarrels,  the  great  disturbers  of  human  happiness,  and 
the  great  sources  of  human  misery,  so  far  as  man’s  happiness  and 
misery  depend  upon  man.  Without  this  disposition,  enmities  must 
not  only  be  frequent,  but,  once  begun,  must  be  eternal :  for,  each 
retaliation  being  a  fresh  injury,  and,  consequently,  requiring  a  fresh 
satisfaction,  no  period  can  be  assigned  to  the  reciprocation  of  af¬ 
fronts,  and  to  the  progress  of  hatred,  but  that  which  closes  the 
lives,  or  at  least  the  intercourse,  of  the  parties. 

I  would  only  add  to  these  observations,  that  although  the  former 
of  the  two  characters  above  described  may  be  occasionally  useful ; 
although,  perhaps,  a  great  general,  or  a  great  statesman,  may  be 
formed  by  it,  and  these  may  be  instruments  of  important  benefits  to 
mankind,  yet  is  this  nothing  more  than  what  is  true  of  many  quali¬ 
ties,  which  are  acknowledged  to  be  vicious.  Envy  is  a  quality  of 
this  sort ;  I  know  not  a  stronger  stimulus  to  exertion ;  many  a  scholar, 
many  an  artist,  many  a  soldier,  has  been  produced  by  it;  neverthe¬ 
less,  since  in  its  general  effects  it  is  noxious,  it  is  properly  condemned, 
certainly  is  not  praised,  by  sober  moralists. 

It  was  a  portion  of  the  same  character  as  that  we  are  defending, 
or  rather  of  his  love  of  the  same  character,  which  our  Savfiour  dis¬ 
played,  in  his  repeated  correction  of  the  ambition  of  his  disciples ; 
his  frequent  admonitions,  that  greatness  with  them  was  to  consist  in 
humility ;  his  censure  of  that  love  of  distinction,  and  greediness  of 
superiority,  which  the  chief  persons  amongst  his  countrymen  were 
wont,  on  all  occasions,  great  and  little,  to  betray.  ‘They  (the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees)  love  the  uppermost  rooms  at  feasts,  and  the  chief 
seats  in  the  synagogues,  and  greetings  in  the  markets,  and  to  be 
called  of  men.  Rabbi,  Rabbi.  But  be  not  ye  called  Rabbi,  for  one  is 
your  Master,  even  Christ,  and  all  ye  are  brethren;  and  call  no  man 
your  father  upon  the  earth,  for  one  is  your  Father,  which  is  in  hea¬ 
ven  ;  neither  be  ye  called  masters,  for  one  is  your  Master,  even 
Christ;  but  he  that  is  greatest  among  you,  shall  be  your  servant; 
and  whosoever  shall  exalt  himself,  shall  be  abased ;  and  he  that 

N 


146  Paley’s  View  of  the 

shall  humble  himself,  shall  be  exalted.’'^  I  make  no  farther  remark 
upon  these  passages  (because  they  are,  in  truth,  only  a  repetition  of 
the  doctrine,  different  expressions  of  the  principle,  which  we  have 
already  stated),  except  that  some  of  the  passages,  especially  our  , 
Lord’s  advice  to  the  guests  at  an  entertainment,t  seem  to  extend  the 
rule  to  what  we  call  manners ;  w'hich  was  both  regular  in  point  of 
consistency,  and  not  so  much  beneath  the  dignity  of  our  Lord  s  mis¬ 
sion  as  may  at  first  sight  be  supposed,  for  bad  manners  are  bad 
morals. 

It  is  sufficiently  apparent,  that  the  precepts  we  have  cited,  or 
rather  the  disposition  which  these  precepts  inculcate,  relate  to  per¬ 
sonal  conduct  from  personal  motives to  cases  in  which  men  act 
from  impulse,  for  themselves,  and  from  themselves.  When  it  comes 
to  be  considered,  what  is  necessary  to  be  done  for  the  sake  of  the 
public,  and  out  of  a  regard  to  the  general  welfare  (which  considera¬ 
tion,  for  the  most  part,  ought  exclusively  to  govern  the  duties  of  men 
in  public  stations),  it  comes  to  a  case  to  which  the  rules  do  not 
belong.  This  distinction  is  plain ;  and  if  it  were  less  so,  the  conse¬ 
quence  would  not  be  much  felt:  for  it  is  very  seldom  that,  in  the 
intercourse  of  private  life,  men  act  with  public  views.  The  per¬ 
sonal  motives,  from  which  they  do  act,  the  rule  regulates. 

The  preference  of  the  patient  to  the  heroic  character,  which  we 
have  here  noticed,  and  which  the  reader  will  find  explained  at  large 
in  the  work  to  which  we  have  referred  him,  is  a  peculiarity  in  the 
Christian  institution,  which  I  propose  as  an  argument  of  wisdom 
very  much  beyond  the  situation  and  natural  character  of  the  person 
who  delivereci  it. 

II.  A  second  argument,  draw’n  from  the  morality  of  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament,  is  the  stress  which  is  laid  by  our  Saviour  upon  the  regula¬ 
tion  of  the  thoughts.  And  I  place  this  consideration  next  to  the 
other,  because  they  are  connected.  The  other  related  to  the  mali¬ 
cious  passions ;  this,  to  the  voluptuous.  Together,  they  comprehend 
the  whole  character. 

‘  Out  of  the  heart  proceed  evil  thoughts,  murders,  adulteries,  for¬ 
nications,’  &c. — ‘  These  are  the  things  which  defde  a  man.’t 

<  Woe  unto  you.  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites!  for  ye  make  , 
clean  the  outside  of  the  cup  and  of  the  platter,  but  within  they  are  i 
full  of  extortion  and  excess.— Ye  are  like  unto  whited  sepulchres, 
which  indeed  appear  beautiful  outward,  but  are  within  full  of  dead 
men’s  bones,  and  of  all  uncleanness ;  even  so  ye  also  outwardly 
appear  righteous  unto  men,  but  within  ye  are  full  of  hypocrisy  and  i 
iniquity.’^ 

And  more  particularly  that  strong  expression,!!  ‘  Whosoever  look- 
eth  on  a  woman  to  lust  after  her,  hath  committed  adultery  with  her 
already  in  his  heart.’ 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  with  any  reflecting  mind,  but  that  the 


*  Matt,  xxiii.  6.  See  also  Mark  xii.  39.  Luke  xx.  46;  xiv.  7. 
t  Luke  xiv.  7.  ■  t  Matt.  xv.  19. 

§  Matt.  x.xiii.  25.  27.  6  Matt,  v,  28. 


147 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

propensities  of  our  nature  must  be  subject  to  regulation ;  but  the 
question  is,  where  the  check  ought  to  be  placed,  upon  the  thought, 
or  only  upon  the  action  ?  In  this  question,  our  Saviour,  in  the  texts 
here  quoted,  has  pronounced  a  decisive  judgment.  He  makes  the 
control  of  thought  essential.  Internal  purity  with  him  is  every 
thing.  Now  I  contend  that  this  is  the  only  discipline  which  can 
succeed  ;  in  other  w’ords,  that  a  moral  system,  which  pi’ohibits 
actions,  but  leaves  the  thoughts  at  liberty,  wall  be  ineffectual,  and 
is  therefore  unwise.  I  know  not  how  to  go  about  the  proof  of  a 
point,  which  depends  upon  experience,  and  upon  a  knowledge  of 
the  human  constitution,  better  than  by  citing  the  judgment  of  per¬ 
sons,  who  appear  to  have  given  great  attention  to  the  subject,  and 
to  be  well  qualified  to  form  a  true  opinion  about  it.  Boerhaave, 
speaking  of  this  very  declaration  of  our  Saviour,  ‘Whosoever  look- 
eth  on  a  woman  to  lust  after  her,  hath  already  committed  adultery 
with  her  in  his  heart,’  and  understanding  it,  as  w'e  do,  to  contain  an 
injunction  to  lay  the  check  upon  the  thoughts,  "was  wont  to  say,  that 
‘our  Saviour  knew  mankind  better  than  Socrates.’  Haller,  who  has 
recorded  this  saying  of  Boerhaave,  adds  to  it  the  following  remarks 
of  his  own  :*  ‘It  did  not  escape  the  observation  of  our  Saviour,  that 
the  rejection  of  any  evil  thoughts  was  the  best  defence  against 
vice :  for  when  a  debauched  person  fills  his  imagination  with  im¬ 
pure  pictures,  the  licentious  ideas  which  he  recalls,  fail  not  to  stimu¬ 
late  his  desires  with  a  degree  of  violence  which  he  cannot  resist. 
This  will  be  followed  by  gratification,  unless  some  external  obstacle 
should  prevent  him  from  the  commission  of  a  sin,  wliich  he  had 
internally  resolved  on.’  ‘Every  moment  of  time,’  says  6ur  author. 
‘  that  is  spent  in  meditations  upon  sin,  increases  the  power  of  the 
dangerous  object  which  has  possessed  our  imagination.’  I  suppose 
these  reflections  will  be  generally  assented  to. 

III.  Thirdly,  Had  a  teacher  of  moi-ality  been  asked  concerning  a 
general  principle  of  conduct,  and  for  a  short  rule  of  life ;  and  had 
he  instructed  the  person  who  consulted  him,  ‘  constantly  to  refer  his 
actions  to  what  he  believed  to  be  the  will  of  his  Creator,  and  con¬ 
stantly  to  have  in  view  not  his  own  interest  and  gratification  alone, 
but  the  happiness  and  comfort  of  those  about  him,’  he  would  have 
been  thought,  I  doubt  not,  in  any  age  of  the  world,  and  in  any,  even 
the  most  improved,  state  of  morals,  to  have  delivered  a  judicious 
answer ;  because,  by  the  first  direction,  he  suggested  the  only  mo¬ 
tive  which  acts  steadily  and  uniformly,  in  sight  and  out  of  sight,  in 
familiar  occurrences  and  under  pressing  temptations ;  and  in  the 
second,  he  corrected  what,  of  all  tendencies  in  the  human  charac¬ 
ter,  stands  most  in  need  of  correction,  selfishness,  or  a  contempt  of 
other  men’s  conveniency  and  satisfaction.  In  estimating  the  value 
of  a  moral  rule,  we  are  to  have  regard  not  only  to  the  particular 
duty,  but  the  general  spirit;  not  only  to  what  it  directs  us  to  do,  but 
to  the  character  which  a  compliance  with  its  direction  is  likely  to 


*  Letters  to  his  Daughter. 


148 


Paley^s  View  of  the 

form  in  us.  So,  in  the  present  instance,  the  rule  here  recited  will 
never  fail  to  make  him  who  obeys  it  considerate,  not  only  of  the 
rights,  but  of  the  feelings  of  other  men,  bodily  and  mental,  in  great 
matters  and  in  small ;  of  the  ease,  the  accommodation,  the  self-com 
placency,  of  all  with  whom  he  has  any  concern,  especially  of  all 
who  are  in  his  power,  or  dependent  upon  his  will. 

Now  what,  in  the  most  applauded  philosopher  of  the  most  en¬ 
lightened  age  of  the  world,  would  have  deemed  worthy  of  his  wis¬ 
dom,  and  of  his  character,  to  say,  our  Saviour  hath  said,  and  upon 
just  such  an  occasion  as  that  which  we  have  feigned. 

‘  Then  one  of  them,  which  was  a  lawyer,  asked  him  a  question, 
tempting  him,  and  saying.  Master,  which  is  the  great  commandment 
in  the  law?  Jesus  said  unto  him.  Thou  shall  love  the  Lord  thy  God 
with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind ; 
this  is  the  first  and  great  commandment ;  and  the  second  is  like  unto 
it.  Thou  shall  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself:  on  these  two  command¬ 
ments  hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets.’"*' 

The  second  precept  occurs  in  Saint  Matthew  (xix.^  16.)  on  another 
occasion  similar  to  this ;  and  both  of  them,  on  a  third  similar  occa¬ 
sion,  in  Luke  (x.  27.)  In  these  two  latter  instances,  the  question  pro¬ 
posed  W'as,  ‘  What  shall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal  life  ?’ 

Upon  all  these  occasions,  I  consider  the  words  of  our  Saviour  as 
expressing  precisely  the  same  thing  as  what  I  have  put  into  the 
mouth  of  the  moral  philosopher.  Nor  do  I  think  that  it  detracts 
much  from  the  merit  of  the  answer,  that  these  precepts  are  extant 
in  the  Mosaic  code ;  for  his  laying  his  linger,  if  I  may  so  say,  upon 
these  precepts ;  his  drawing  them  out  from  the  rest  of  that  vblumin 
ous  institution ;  his  stating  of  them,  not  simply  amongst  the  number, 
but  as  the  greatest  and  the  sum  of  all  the  others ;  in  a  word,  his 
proposing  of  them  to  his  hearers  for  their  rule  and  principle,  was 
our  Saviour’s  own. 

And  what  our  Saviour  had  said  upon  the  subject,  appears  to  me 
to  \\ave  fixed  the  sentiment  amongst  his  followers. 

Saint  Paul  has  it  expressly,  ‘  If  there  be  any  other  commandment, 
it  is  briefly  comprehended  in  this  saying.  Thou  shall  love  thy  neigh¬ 
bor  as  thyself;’!  and  again,  ‘For  all  the  law  is  fulfilled  in  one  word, 
even  in  tnis.  Thou  shall  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself’! 

Saint  John,  in  like  manner,  ‘  This  commandment  have  we  from 
him,  that  he  who  loveth  God,  love  his  brother  also.’$ 

Saint  Peter,  not  very  differently :  ‘  Seeing  that  ye  have  purified 
your  souls  in  obeying  the  truth,  through  the  Spirit,  unto  unfeigned 
love  of  the  brethren,  see  that  ye  love  one  another  with  a  pure  heart 
fervently.’ll 

And  it  is  so  well  known,  as  to  require  no  citations  to  verify  it, 
that  this  love,  or  charity,  or,  in  other  words,  regard  to  the  welfare 
of  others,  runs  in  various  forms  through  all  the  preceptive  parts  of 


*  Matt.  xxii.  35 — 40. 
§  1  John  iv.  21. 


Rom.  xiii.  9. 
1  Peter  i.  22. 


t  Gal.  V.  H. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  149 

the  apostolic  writings.  It  is  the  theme  of  all  their  exhortations,  that 
with  which  their  morality  begins  and  ends,  from  which  all  their 
details  and  enumerations  set  out,  and  into  which  they  return. 

And  that  this  temper,  for  some  time  at  least,  descended  in  its 
purity  to  succeeding  Christians,  is  attested  by  one  of  the  earliest  and 
best  of  the  remaining  writings  of  the  apostolical  fathers,  the  epistle 
of  the  Roman  Clement.  The  meekness  of  the  'Christian  character 
reigns  throughout  the  whole  of  that  excellent  piece.  The  occasion 
called  for  it.  It  was  to  compose  the  dissensions  of  the  church  of 
Corinth.  And  the  venerable  hearer  of  the  apostles  does  not  fall 
short,  in  the  display  of  this  principle,  of  the  finest  passages  of  their 
writings.  He  calls  to  the  remembrance  of  the  Corinthian  church 
its  former  character,  in  which  ‘ye  were  all  of  you,’  he  tells  them, 
‘humble-minded,  not  boasting  of  any  thing,  desiring  rather  to  be 
subject  than  to  govern,  to  give,  than  to  receive,  being  content  with 
the  portion  God  had  dispetised  to  you,  and  hearkening  diligently  to 
his  word  ;  ye  w^ere  enlarged  in  your  bowels,  having  his  sufferings 
always  before  your  eyes.  Ye  contended  day  and  night  for  the  whole 
brotherhood,  thilt  with  compassion  and  a  good  conscience  the  num¬ 
ber  of  his  elect  might  be  saved.  Ye  were  sincere,  and  without 
offence,  towmrds  each  other.  Ye  bew'ailed  every  one  his  neighbor’s 
sins,  esteeming  their  defects  your  own.’*  His  prayer  for  them  was 
for  the  ‘  return  of  peace,  long-suffering,  and  patience ’t  And  his 
advice  to  those,  w'ho  might  have  been  the  occasion  of  difference  in 
the  society,  is  conceived  in  the  true  spirit,  and  with  a  perfect  know¬ 
ledge,  of  the  Christian  character:  ‘Who  is  there  among  you  that  is 
generous  ?  who  that  is  compassionate  ?  who  that  has  any  charity  ? 
Let  him  say.  If  this  sedition,  this  contention,  and  these  schisms,  be 
upon  my  account,  I  am  ready  to  depart,  to  go  away  whithersoever  ye 
please,_and  do  whatsoever  ye  shall  command  me :  only  let  the  flock 
of  Christ  be  in  peace  with  the  elders  who  are  set  over  it  He  that 
shall  do  this,  shall  get  to  himself  a  verj/^  great  honor  in  the  Lord  ; 
and  there  is  no  place  but  what  will  be  ready  to  receive  him :  for  the 
earth  is  the  Lord’s,  and  the  fullness  thereof.  These  things  they,  who 
have  their  conversation  towards  God,  not  to  be  repented  of,  both 
have  done,  and  will  always  be  ready  to  do.’f 

This  sacred  principle,  this  earnest  recommendation  of  forbearance, 
lenity,  and  forgiveness,  mixes  with  all  the  writings  of  that  age. 
There  are  more  quotations  in  the  apostolical  fathers,  of  texts  which 
relate  to  these  points,  than  of  any  other.  Christ’s  sayings  had  struck 
them.  ‘  Not  rendering,’  said  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  John,  ‘  evil 
for  evil,  or  railing  for  railing,  or  striking  for  striking,  or  cursing  for 
cursing.’^  Again,  speaking  of  some  whose  behavior  had  given  great 
offence,  ‘  Be  ye  moderate,’  says  he,  ‘  on  this  occasion,  and  look  not 
upon  such  as  enemies,  but  call  them  back  as  suffering  and  erring 
members,  that  ye  save  your  whole  body.’H 

- V- - 

*  Ep.  Clem.  Rom.  c.  2;  Abp.  Wake’s  Translation.  t  Ib.  c.  53. 

t  Ib.  c.  54.  §  Pol.  Ep.  Ad.  Phil.  c.  2.  |  Ib.  c.  11. 

N2 


150  Paley^s  View  of  the 

<  Be  ye  mild  at  their  anger,’  saith  Ignatius,  the  companion  of  Poly 
carp,  ‘  humble  at  their  boastings,  to  their  blasphemies  return  your 
prayers,  to  their  error  your  firmness  in  the  faith ;  when  they  are 
cruel,  be  ye  gentle ;  not  endeavoring  to  imitate  their  ways,  let  us 
be  their  brethren  in  all  kindness  and  moderation :  but  let  us  be  fol¬ 
lowers  of  the  Lord ;  for  who  was  ever  more  unjustly  used,  more 
destitute^  more  despised  ? ’  ,  • 

IV.  A  fourth  quality,  by  which  the  morality  of  the  Gospel  is  dis¬ 
tinguished,  is  the  exclusion  of  regard  to  fame  and  reputation. 

‘  Take  heed  that  ye  do  not  your  alms  before  men,  to  be  seen  of 
them,  otherwise  ye  have  no  reward  of  your  Father  which  is  in 

Heaven.’*  ,  i 

‘  When  thou  prayest,  enter  into  thy  closet,  and  when  thou  hast 
shut  the  door,  pray  to  thy  Father  which  is  in  secret;  and  thy  Father, 
Avhich  seeth  in  secret,  shall  reward  thee  openly.’t 

And  the  rule,  by  parity  of  reason,  is  extended  to  all  other  virtues 

I  do  not  think,  that  either  in  these,  or  in  any  other  passage  of 
the  New  Testament,  the  pursuit  of  fame  is  stated  as  a  vice  ;  it  is 
only  said  that  an  action,  to  be  virtuous,  must  be  independent  of  it. 

I  would  also  observe,  that  it  is  not  publicity,  but  ostentation,  which 
is  prohibited ;  not  the  mode,  but  the  motive,  of  the  action,  which  is 
regulated.  A  good  man  will  prefer  that  mode,  as  w'ell  as  those 
objects  of  his  beneficence,  by  which  he  can  produce  the  greatest 
effect;  and  the  view  of  this  purpose  may  dictate  sometimes  publica¬ 
tion,  and  sometimes  concealment.  Either  the  one  or  the  other  may 
be  the  mode  of  the  action,  according  as  the  end  to  be  promoted  by 
it  appears  to  require.  But  from  the  motive,  the  reputation  of  the 
deed,  and  the  fruits  and  advantage  of' that  reputation  to  ourselves, 
must  be  shut  out,  or,  in  whatever  proportion  they  are  not  so,  the 
action  in  that  proportion  fails  of  being  virtuous. 

This  exclusion  of  regard  to  human  opinion,  is  a  difference,  not  so 
much  in  the  duties  to  which  the  teachers  of  virtue  would  persuade 
mankind,  as  in  the  manner  and  topics  of  persuasion.  And  in  this  view 
the  difference  is  great.  When  we  set  about  to  give  advice,  our  lec¬ 
tures  are  full  of  the  advantages  of  character,  of  the  regard  that  is 
due  to  appearances  and  to  opinion ;  of  what  the  world,  especially 
of  what  the  good  or  great,  will  think  and  say ;  of  the  value  of  pub¬ 
lic  esteem,  and  of  the  qualities  by  which  men  acquire  it.  Widely 
different  from  this  was  our  Saviour’s  instruction ;  and  the  difference 
was  founded  upon  the  best  reasons.  For,  however  the  care  of  repu¬ 
tation,  the  authority  of  public  opinion,  or  even  of  the  opinion  of 
good  men,  the  satisfaction  of  being  well  received  and  well  thought 
of,  the  benefit  of  being  known  and  distinguished,  are  topics  to 
which  we  are  fain  to  have  recourse  in  our  exhortations ;  the  true 
virtue  is  that  which  discards  these  considerations  absolutely,  and 
which  retires  from  them  all  to  the  single  internal  purpose  of  pleas¬ 
ing  God.  This  at  least  was  the  virtue  wLich  our  Saviour  taught. 
And  in  teaching  this,  he  not  only  confined  the  views  of  his  followers 


*  Matt.  vi.  1. 


I  Matt.  vi.  6. 


Evidences  of  Christianity,  151 

to  the  proper  measure  and  principle  of  human  duty,  but  acted  in 
consistency  with  his  office  as  a  monitor  from  heaven. 

Next  to  what  our  Saviour  taught,  may  be  considered  the  manner 
of  his  teaching :  which  was  extremely  peculiar,  yet,  I  think,  pre¬ 
cisely  adapted  to  the  peculiarity  of  his  character  and  situation.  His 
lessons  did  not  consist  of  disquisitions ;  of  any  thing  like  moral 
essays,  or  like  sermons,  or  like  set  treatises  upon  the  several  points 
which  he  mentioned.  When  he  delivei'ed  a  precept,  it  was  seldom 
that  he  added  any  proof  or  argument:  still  more  seldom,  that  he  ac- 
companied  it  with,  what  all  precepts  require,  limitations  and  dis¬ 
tinctions.  His  instructions  were  conceived  in  short,  emphatic,  sen¬ 
tentious  rules,  in  occasional  reflections,  or  in  round  maxims.  I  do 
not  think  that  this  was  a  natural,  or  would  have  been  a  proper 
method  for  a  philosopher  or  a  moralist ;  or  that  it  is  a  method  which 
can  be  successfully  imitated  by  us.  But  I  contend  that  it  was  suita¬ 
ble  to  the  character  which  Christ  assumed,  and  to  the  situation  in 
which,  as  a  teacher,  he  was  placed.  He  produced  himself  as  a 
messenger  from  God.  He  put  the  truth  of  what  he  taught  upon 
authority.^  In  the  choice,  therefore,  of  his  mode  of  teaching,  the 
purpose  by  him  to  be  consulted  was  impression :  because  conviction, 
which  forrns  the  principal  end  of  our  discourses,  was  to  arise  in  the 
minds  of  his  followers  from  a  different  source,  from  their  respect  to 
his  person  and  authority.  Now,  for  the  purpose  of  impression  singly 
and  exclusiyely  <I  repeat  again,  that  we  are  not  here  to  consider 
the  convincing  of  the  understanding),  I  know  nothing  which  would 
have  so  great  force  as  strong  ponderous  maxims,  frequently  urged, 
and  frequently  brought  back  to  the  thoughts  of  the  hearers.  I  know 
nothing  that  could  in  this  view  be  said  better,  than  ‘Do  unto  others 
as  ye  would  that  others  should  do  unto  you  V  ‘The  first  and  great 
commandment  is.  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God;  and  the 
second  is  like  unto  it.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself’  It 
must  also  be  remembered,  that  our  Lorcl’s  ministry,  upon  the  sup¬ 
position  either  of  one  year  or  three,  compared  with  his  work,  was 
of  short  duration ;  that,  within  this  time,  he  had  many  places  to 
visit,  various  audiences  to  address ;  that  his  person  was  generally 
besieged  by  crowds  of  followers :  that  he  w^as,  sometimes,  driven 
away  from  the  place  where  he  was  teaching  by  persecution,  and  at 
other  times,  thought  fit  to  withdraw  himself  from  the  commotions 
of  the  populace.  Under  these  circumstances,  nothing  appears  to 
have  been  so  practicable,  or  likely  to  be  so  efficacious,  as  leaving, 
wherever  he  came,  concise  lessons  of  duty.  These  circumstances 
at  least  show  the  necessity  he  was  under  of  comprising  what  he  de¬ 
livered  within  a  small  compass.  In  particular,  his  sermon  upon  the 
mount  ought  always  to  be  considered  with  a  view  to  these  obser¬ 
vations.  The  question  is  not,  whether  a  fuller,  a  more  accurate,  a 
more  systematic,  or  a  more  argumentative,  discourse  upon  morals 


*  ‘  /  say  unto  you.  Swear  not  at  all ;  /  say  unto  you.  Resist  not  evil ;  i 
say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies.’ — Matt.  v.  34.  39.  4t. 


152 


Foley's  View  of  the 

might  not  have  been  pronounced ;  but  whether  more  could  have 
been  said  in  the  same  room,  better  adapted  to  the  exigencies  of  the 
hearers,  or  better  calculated  for  the  purpose  of  impression  ?  Seen  in 
this  light,  it  has  always  appeared  to  me  to  be  admirable.  •  Dr.  Lard- 
ner  thought  that  this  discourse  w^as  made  up  of  what  Christ  had 
said  at  different  times,  and  on  different  occasions,  several  of  which 
occasions  are  noticed  in  Saint  Luke’s  narrative.  I  can  perceive  no 
reason  for  this  opinion.  I  believe  that  our  Lord  delivered  this  dis¬ 
course  at  one  time  and  place,  in  the  manner  related  by  Saint  Mat¬ 
thew,  and  that  he  repeated  the  same  rules  and  maxims  at  different 
times,  as  opportunity  or  occasion  suggested  ;  that  they  were  often 
in  his  mouth,  and  were  repeated  to  different  audiences,  and  in  va¬ 
rious  conversations. ' 

It  is  incidental  to  this  mode  of  moral  instruction,  which  proceeds 
not  by  proof  but  upon  authority,  not  by  disquisition  but  by  precept, 
that  the  rules  will  be  conceived  in  absolute  terms,  leaving  the  ap¬ 
plication,  and  the  distinctions  that  attend  it,  to  the  reason  of  the 
hearer  It  is  likewise  to  be  expected  that  they  will  be  delivered  in 
terras  by  so  much  the  more  forcible  and  energetic;  as  they  have  to 
encounter  natural  or  general  propensities.  It  is  farther  also  to  be 
remarked,  that  many  of  those  strong  instances,  which  appear  in  our 
Lord’s  sermon,  such  as,  ‘  If  any  man  will  smite  thee  on  the  right 
cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also :’  ‘  If  any  man  yvill  sue  thee  at  the 
law,  and  take  away  thy  coat,  let  him  have  thy  cloak  also :’  ‘  Whoso¬ 
ever  shall  compel  thee  to  go  a  mile,  go  with  him  twain :’  though 
they  appear  in  the  form  of  specific  precepts,  are  int  ended  as  descrip¬ 
tive  of  disposition  and  character.  A  specific  compliance  with  the 
precepts  would  be  of  little  value,  but  the  disposition  which  they 
inculcate  is  of  the  highest.  He  who  should  content  himself  with 
waiting  for  the  occasion,  and  with  literally  observing  the  rule  when 
the  occasion  offered,  would  do  nothing  or  worse  than  nothing :  but 
he  who  considers  the  character  and  disposition  which  is  hereby  in¬ 
culcated,  and  places  that  disposition  before  him  as  the  model  to 
which  he  should  bring  his  own,  takes,  perhaps,  the  best  possible 
method  of  improving  the  benevolence,  and  of  calming  and  rectify¬ 
ing  the  vices,  of  his  temper. 

If  it  be  said,  that  this  disposition  is  unattainable,  I  answer,  so  is 
all  perfection :  ought  therefore  a  moralist  to  recommend  imperfec¬ 
tions  ?  One  excellency,  however,  of  our  Saviour’s  rules,  is,  that  they 
are  either  never  mistaken,  or  neve^  so  mistaken  as  to  do  harm.  I 
could  feign  a  hundred  cases,  in  which  the  literal  application  of  the 
rule,  ‘  of  doing  to  others  as  we  would  that  others  should  do  unto  us,’ 
might  mislead  us :  but  I  never  yet  met  with  the  man  who  was  ac¬ 
tually  misled  by  it.  Notwithstanding  that  our  Lord  bade  his  fol¬ 
lowers  ‘  not  to  resist  evil,’  and  ‘  to  forgive  the  enemy  who  should 
trespass  against  them,  not  till  seven  times,  but  till  seventy  times 
seven,’  the  Christian  world  has  hitherto  suffered  little  by  too  much 
placability  or  forbearance.  I  would  repeat  once  more,  what  has 
already  been  twice  remarked,  that  these  rules  were  designed  to 


Evidences  of  Christianity  153 

regulate  personal  conduct  from  personal  motives,  and  for  this  pur¬ 
pose  alone. 

I  think  that  these  observations  will  assist  us  greatly  in  placing  our 
Saviour’s  conduct,  as  a  moral  teacher,  in  a  proper  point  of  view ; 
especially  when  it  is  considered,  that  to  deliver  moral  disquisitions 
was  no  part  of  his  design, — to  teach  morality  at  all  was  only  a  sub¬ 
ordinate  part  of  it ;  his  great  business  being  to  supply,  what  was  much 
more  wanting  than  lessons  of  morality,  stronger  moral  sanctions, 
and  clearer  assurances  of  a  future  judgment.* 

I'he  parables  of  the  New  Testament  are,  many  of  them,  such  as 
would  have  done  honor  to  any  book  in  the  world  ;  I  do  not  mean 
in  style  and  diction,  but  in  the  choice  of  the  subjects,  in  the  struc¬ 
ture  of  the  narratives,  in  the  aptness,  propriety,  and  force  of  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  woven  into  them ;  and  in  some,  as  that  of  the  good 
Samaritan,  the  prodigal  son,  the  Pharisee  and  the  publican,  in  a 
union  of  pathos  and  simplicity,  which,  in  the  best  productions  of 
hum.an  genius,  is  the  fruit  only  of  a  much  exercised  and  well- 
cultivated  judgment. 

The  Lord's  Prayer,  for  a  succession  of  solemn  thoughts,  for  fixing 
the  attention  upon  a  few  great  points,  for  suitableness  to  every  con¬ 
dition,  for  sufficiency,  for  conciseness  without  obscurity,  for  the 
weight  and  real  importance  of  its  petitions,  is  without  an  equal  or  a 
rival. 

From  w'hence  did  these  come?  Whence  had  this  man  his  wis¬ 
dom  ?  Was  our  Saviour,  in  fact,  a  well-instructed  philosopher,  whilst 
he  is  represented  to  us  as  an  illiterate  peasant  ?  Or  shall  we  say  that 
some  early  Christians  of  taste  and  education  composed  these  pieces 
and  ascribed  them  to  Christ?  Beside  all  other  incredibilities  in  this 
acc'omit,  I  answer,  with  Dr.  Jortin,  that  they  could  not  do  it.  No 
specimens  of  composition,  which  the  Christians  of  the  first  century 
have  left  us,  authorize  us  to  believe  that  they  were  equal  to  the 
task.  And  how  little  qualified  the  Jews,  the  countrymen  and  com¬ 
panions  of  Christ,  were  to  assist  him  in  the  undertaking,  may  be 
judged  of  from  the  traditions  and  writings  of  theirs  which  w'ere  the 
nearest  to  that  age.  The  whole  collection  of  the  Talmud  is  one 
continued  proof,  into  what  follies  they  fell  whenever  they  left  their 


*  Some  appear  to  require  a  religious  system,  or,  in  the  books  which 
profess  to  deliver  that  system,  minute  directions,  for  every  case  and  oc¬ 
currence  that  may  arise.  This,  say  they,  is  necessary  to  render  a  revela¬ 
tion  perfect,  especially  one  w  hich  has  for  its  object  the  regulation  of  hu¬ 
man  conduct.  No^»-  how'  prolix,  yet  how  incomplete  and  unavailing, 
such  an  attempt  must  have  been,  is  proved  by  one  notable  example  : 
‘The  Indoo  and  Mussulman  religion  are  institutes  of  civil  law',  regulat 
ing  the  minutest  questions  both  of  property,  and  of  all  questions  which 
come  under  the  cognizance  of  the  magistrate.  And  to  w'hat  length  details 
of  this  kind  are  necessarily  carried,  w'hen  once  begun,  may  be  under¬ 
stood  from  an  anecdote  of  the  Mussulman  code,  which  w'e  have  received 
from  the  most  respectable  authority,  that  not  less  than  seventy-five 
thousand  traditional  precepts  have  been  promulgated.’  (Hamilton’s 
Translation  of  Hedaya,  or  Guide.) 

26 


54  Valey's  View  of  the 

BiDle ;  and  how  little  capable  they  were  of  furnishing  out  such  les^ 
sons  as  Christ  delivered. 

But  there  is  still  another  view,  in  which  our  Lord’s  discourses 
deserve  to  be  considered ;  and  that  is,  in  their  negative  character,— 
not  in  what  they  did,  but  in  what  they  did  not,  contain.  Under  this 
head,  the  following  reflections  appear  to  me  to  possep  some  weight 

I.  They  exhibit  no  particular  description  of  the  invisible  world 
The  future  happiness  of  the  good,  and  the  misery  of  the  bad,  which 
is  all  we  want  to  be  assured  of,  is  directly  and  positively  affirmed, 
and  is  represented  by  metaphors  and  comparisons,  which  were 
plainly  intended  as  metaphors  and  comparisons,  and  as  nothing 
more.  As  to  the  rest,  a  solemn  reserve  is  maintained.  The  ques¬ 
tion  concerning  the  woman  who  had  been  married  to  seven 
brothers,  ‘Whose  shall  she  be  on  the  resurrection?’  was  of  a 
natufG  calciilcited  to  havG  drawn  from  Christ  a  mor©  circumstantial 

ccount  of  the  state  of  the  human  species  in  their  future  existence. 
He  cut  short,  however,  the  inquiry,  by  an  answer,  which  at  once 
rebuked  intruding  curiosity,  and  was  agreeable  to  the  best  appre- 
hensions  we  are  able  to  form  upon  the  subject,  viz.  ‘That  they  who 
are  accounted  worthy  of  that  resurrection,  shall  be  as  the  angels  of 
God  in  heaven.’  I  lay  a  stress  upon  this  reserve,  because  it  repels 
the  suspicion  of  enthusiasm :  for  enthusiasm  is  wont  to  expatiate 
upon  the  condition  of  the  departed,  above  all  other  subjects ;  and 
with  a  wild  particularity.  It  is  moreover  a  topic  which  is  always 
listened  to  with  greediness.  The  teacher,  therefore,  whose  princi-, 
pal  purpose  is  to  draw  upon  himself  attention,  is  sure  to  be  full  of  it. 
The  Koran  of  Mahomet  is  half  made  up  of  it. 

II.  Our  Lord  enjoined  no  austerities.  He  not  only  enjoined  none 
as  absolute  duties,  but  he  recommended  none  as  carrying  men  to  a 
higher  degree,  of  divine  favor.  Place  Christianity,  in  this  respect 
by  the  side  of  all  institutions  which  have  been  founded  in  the  fanati¬ 
cism,  either  of  their  author,  or  of  his  first  followers ;  or  rather  com¬ 
pare,  in  this  respect,  Christianity  as  it  came  from  Christ,  with  the. 
same  religion  after  it  fell  into  other  hands  ^  with  the  extravagant 
merit  very  soon  ascribed  to  celibacy,  solitude,  voluntary  poverty . 
with  the  rigors  of  an  ascetic,  and  the  vows  of  a  monastic  life ;  the, 
hair  shirt,  the  watchings,  the  midnight  prayers,  the  obmutescence 
the  gloom  and  mortification  of  religious  orders,  and  of  those  whc 
aspired  to  religious  perfection. 

III.  Our  Saviour  uttered  no  impassioned  devotion.  There  was  no 
neat  in  his  piety,  or  in  the  language  in  which  he  expressed  it ;  nc 

ehement  or  rapturous  ejaculations,  no  violent  urgency,  in  lusi 
rayei-s.  The  Lord’s  Prayer  is  a  model  of  calm  devotion.  His  words 
in  the  garden  are  unaflected  expressions,  of  a  deep  indeed,  bu 
sober,  piety.  He  never  appears  to  have  been  worked  up  into  any, 
thing  like  that  elation,  or  that  emotion  of  spirit  which  is  occasionally 
observed  in  most  of  those,  to  whom  the  name  of  enthusiast  can  ii 
any  degree  be  applied.  I  feel  a  respect  for  Methodists,  because 
nelieve  that  there  is  to  be  found  amongst  them  much  sincere  piety. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  155 

and  availing,  though  not  always  well-informed,  Christianity :  yet  1 
never  attended  a  meeting  of  theirs,  but  I  came  away  with  the  reflec¬ 
tion,  how  different  what  I  heard  was  from  what  I  read !  I  do  not 
mean  in  doctrine,  with  which  at  present  I  have  no  concern,  but  in 
,  manner ;  how  different  from  the  calmness,  the  sobriety,  the  good 
sense,  and  I  may  add,  the  strength  and  authority,  of  our  Lord’s  dis¬ 
courses  ! 

IV.  It  is  vezy  usual  with  the  human  mind,  to  substitute  forward¬ 
ness  and  fervency  in  a  particular  cause,  for  the  merit  of  general  and 
regular  morality ;  and  it  is  natural,  and  politic  also,  in  the  leader  of 
a  sect  or  party,  to  encourage  such  a  disposition  in  his  followers. 

■  Christ  did  not  overlook  this  tzirn  of  thought;  yet,  though  avowedly 
placing  himself  at  the  head  of  a  new  institution,  he  notices  it  only 
to  condemn  it.  |  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me.  Lord,  Lord,  shall 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven.  Manv  will  say  unto  me  in  that  day, 
Lord,  Lord,  have  we  not  prophesied  in  thy  name  ?  and  in  thy  name 
have  cast  out  devils?  and  in  thy  name  done  many  wonderful  works? 
And  then  will  I  profess  unto  you  I  never  knew  you :  depart  from 
me,  ye  that  work  iniquity.’*  So  far  was  the  author  of  Christianity 
'  from  courting  the  attachment  of  his  followers  by  any  sacrifice  of 
principle,  or  by  a  condescension  to  the  errors  which  even  zeal  in  his 
service  might  have  inspired!  This  was  a  proof  both  of  sincerity 
and  judgment. 

V.  Nor,  fifthly,  did  he  fall  in  with  any  of  the  depraved  fashions 
of  his  country,  or  with  the  natural  bias  of  his  own  education.  Bred 
up  a  Jew,  under  a  religion  extremely  technical,  in  an  age  and 
amongst  a  people  more  tenacious  of  the  ceremonies  than  of  any 
other  part  of  that  religion,  he  delivered  an  institution,  containing  - 
less  of  ritual,  and  that  more  simple  than  is  to  be  found  in  any  reli¬ 
gion  which  ever  prevailed  amongst  mankind.  We  have  known,  I 
do  allow,  examples  of  an  enthusiasm,  which  has  swept  away  all 
external  ordinances  before  it.  But  this  spirit  certainly  did  not  die-' 
tate  our  Saviour’s  conduct,  either  in  his  treatment  of  the  religion 
of  his  country,  or  in  the  formation  of  his  own  institution.  In  both, 
he  displayed  the  soundness  and  moderation  of  his  judgment.  He 
censured  an  overstrained  scrupulousness,  or  perhaps  an  affectation 
of  scrupulousness,  about  the  sabbath:  but, how  did  he  censure  it? 
not  by  contemning  or  decrying  the  institution  itself,  but  by  declaring 
that  ‘  the  sabbath  was  made  for  man,  not  man  for  the  sabbath ;’  that 
is  to  say,  that  the  sabbath  was  to  be  subordinate  to  its  purpose,  and 
that  that  purpose  was  the  real  good  of  those  who  were  the  subjects 
of  the  law.  The  same  concerning  the  nicety  of  some  of  the  Phari¬ 
sees,  m  paying  tithes  of  the  most  trifling  articles,  accompanied  with 

a  neglect  of  justice,  fidelity,  and  mercy.  He  finds  fault  with  them 
for  misplacing  their  anxiety,  tie  does  not  speak  disrespectfully  of 
the  law  of  tithes,  nor  of  their  observance  of  it ;  but  he  assigns  to 


*Matt.  vii.  21,22. 


156 


Foley’s  View  of  the 

each  class  of  duties  its  proper  station  in  the  scale  of  moral  import¬ 
ance.  All  this  might  be  expected  perhaps  from  a  well-instructed, 
cool,  and  judicious  philosopher,  but  was  not  to  be  looked  for  from 
an  illiterate  Jew ;  certainly  not  from  an  impetuous  enthusiast 

VI.  Nothing  could  be  more  quibbling,  than  were  the  comments 
and  expositions  of  the  Jewish  doctors  at  that  time ;  nothing  so  puerile 
as  their  distinctions.  Their  evasion  of  the  fifth  commandment,  their 
exposition  of  the  law  of  oaths,  are  specimens  of  the  bad  taste  in 
morals  which  then  prevailed.  Whereas,  in  a  numerous  collection 
of  our  Saviour’s  apophthegms,  many  of  them  referring  to  sundry 
precepts  of  the  Jewish  law,  there  is  not  to  be  found  one  example  of 
sophistry,  or  of  false  subtilty,  or  of  any  thing  approaching  thereunto. 

VII.  The  national  temper  of  the  Jews  was  intolerant,  narrow¬ 
minded,  and  excluding.  In  Jesus,  on  the  contrary,  whether  we 
regard  his  lessons  or  his  example,  we  see  not  only  benevolence,  bul 
benevolence  the  most  enlarged  and  comprehensive.  In  the  parable 
of  the  good  Samaritan,  the  very  point  of  the  story  is,  that  the  person 
relieved  by  him,  was  the  national  and  religious  enemy  of  his  bene-, 
factor.  Our  Lord  declared  the  equity  of  the  divine  administration 
when  he  told  the  Jew’s  (what,  probably,  they  were  surprised  tc 
hear),  ‘  That  many  should  come  from  the  east  and  west,  and  should 
sit  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of  hea-; 
ven  ;  but  that  the  children  of  the  kingdom  should  be  cast  into  oulei 
darkness.’*  His  reproof  of  the  hasty  zeal  of  his  disciples,  who  w'ould' 
needs  call  down  fire  from  heaven  to  revenge  an  affront  put  upon 
their  Master,  shows  the  lenity  of  his  character,  and  of  his  religion 
and  his  opinion  of  the  manner  in  which  the  most  unreasonable 
opponents  ought  to  be  treated,  or  at  least  of  the  manner  in  which 
they  ought  not  to  be  treated.  The  terms  in  which  his  rebuke  was 
conveyed,  deserve  to  be  noticed : — ‘Ye  know  not  what  manner  of 
spirit  ye  are  of.’t 

VIII.  Lastly,  amongst  the  negative  qualities  of  our  religion,  as  it 
came  out  of  the  hands  of  its  Flounder  and  his  apostles,  we  may 
reckon  its  complete  abstraction  from  all  views  either  of  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  or  civil  policy ;  or,  to  meet  a  language  much  in  fashion  with 
some  men,  from  the  politics  either  of  priests  or  statesmen.  Christ’s 
declaration,  that  ‘  his  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world,’  recorded  by- 
Saint  John ;  his  evasion  of  the  question,  whether  it  was  lawful  oi 
not  to  give  tribute  unto  CiEsar,  mentioned  by  the  three  other  evan¬ 
gelists  ;  his  reply  to  an  application  that  was  made  to  him,  to  inter¬ 
pose  his  authority  in  a  question  of  property ;  ‘  Man,  who  made  me  8 
ruler  or  a  judge  over  you?’  ascribed  to  him  by  Saint  Luke;  his  de¬ 
clining  to  exercise  the  office  of  a  criminal  judge  in  the  case  of  the 
woman  taken  in  adultery,  as  related  by  John,  are  all  intelligible 
significations  of  our  Saviour’s  sentiments  upon  this  head.  And  with 
respect  to  poUfics,  in  the  usual  sense  of  that  word,  or  discussions 
concerning  different  forms  of  government,  Christianity  declines 
every  question  upon  the  subject.  Whilst  politicians  are  disputing 


*  Matt.  viii.  11 


t  Luke  ix,  55. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  157 

ibout  monarchies,  aristocracies,  and  republics,  the  gospel  is  alike 
ipplicable,  useful,  and  friendly,  to  them  all ;  inasmuch  as,  1st,  it 
ends  to  make  men  virtuous,  and  as  it  is  easier  to  govern  good  men 
han  bad  men  under  any  constitution ;  as,  2dly,  it  states  obedience 
0  government  in  ordinary  cases,  to  be  not  merely  a  submission  to 
brce,  but  a  duty  of  consmence  ;  as,  3dly,  it  induces  dispositions  fa- 
■orable  to  public  tranquillity,  a  Christian’s  chief  care  being  to  pass 
(uietly  through  this  world  to  a  better;  as,  4thly,  it  prays  for  com- 
nunities,  and  for  the  governors  of  communities,  of  whatever  de- 
cription  or  denomination  they  be,  with  a  solicitude  and  fervency 
)roportioned  to  the  influence  which  they  possess  upon  human  hap- 
)iness.  All  which,  in  my  opinion,  is  just  as  it  should  be.  Had 
here  been  more  to  be  found  in  Scripture  of  a  political  nature,  or 
onvertible  to  political  purposes,  the  worst  use  would  have  been 
aade  of  it,  on  whichever  side  it  seemed  to  lie. 

When,  therefore,  we  consider  Christ  as  a  moral  teacher  (remem- 
lering  that  this  was  only  a  secondary  part  of  his  office  ;■  and  that 
norality,  by  the  nature  of  the  subject,  does  not  admit  of  discovery, 
•roperly  so  called) ; — when  we  consider  either  wfoat  he  taught,  or 
vhat  he  did  not  teach,  either  the  substance  or  the  manner  of  his 
nstruction ;  his  preference  of  solid  to  popular  virtues,  of  a  character 
vhich  is  commonly  despised  to  a  character  which  is  universally 
xtolled ;  his  placing,  in  our  licentious  vices,  the  check  in  the  right 
ilace,  viz.  upon  the  thoughts ;  his  collecting  of  human  duty  into  two 
veil-devised  rules,  his  repetition  of  these  rules,  the  stress  he  laid 
pon  them,  especially  in  comparison  wdth  positive  duties,  and  his 
■Xing  thereby  the  sentiments  of  his  followers  ;  his  exclusion  of  all 
egard  to  reputation  in  our  devotion  and  alms,  and,  by  parity  of 
eason,  in  our  other- virtues ; — when  we  consider  that  his  instruc- 
ons  w^ere  delivered  in  a  form  calculated  for  impression,  the  precise 
iirpose  in  his  situation  to  be  consulted ;  and  that  they  were  illus- 
rated  by  parables,  the  choice  and  structure  of  which  w'ould  have* 
een  admired  in  any  composition  whatever; — when  we  observe 
im  free  from  the  usual  symptoms  of  enthusiasm,  heat  and  vehe- 
lence  in  devotion,  austerity  in  institutions,  and  a  wild  particulai*ity 
1  the  description  of  a  future  state ;  free  also  from  the  depravilie 
f  his  age  and  country ;  wdthout  superstition  amongst  the  most  su 
orstilious  of  men,  yet  not  decrying  positive  distinctions  or  externa 
bservances,  but  soberly  calling  them  to  the  principle  of  their  es- 
iblishment,  and  to  their  place  in  the  scale  of  human  duties ;  with- 
ut  sophistry  or  trifling,  amidst  teachers  remarkable  for  nothing  so 
mch  as  frivolous  subtilties  and  quibbling  expositions ;  candid  and 
beral  in  his  judgment  of  the  rest  of  mankind,  although  belonging 
)  a  people  who  affected  a  separate  claim  to  divine  favor,  and,  in 
onsequence  of  that  opinion,  prone  to  uncharitableness,  partiality, 
nd  restitution ; — w-hen  we  find,  in  his  religion,  no  scheme  of  build- 
ig  up  a  hierarchy,  or  of  ministering  to  the  views  of  human  govern- 
lents ; — in  a  word,  when  w'e  compare  Christianity,  as  it  came  from 
s  Author,  either  with  other  religions,  or  with  itself  in  other  hands, 
le  most  reluctant  understanding  will  be  induced  to  acknowledge 

0 


158  Paleifs  View  of  the 

the  probity,  I  think  also  the  good  sense,  of  those  to  whom  it  owes 
its  origin ;  and  that  some  regard  is  due  to  the  testimony  of  such 
men,  when  they  declare  their  knowledge  that  the  religion  proceeded 
from  God  ;  and  when  they  appeal,  for  the  truth  of  their  assertion,  to 
miracles  which  they  wrought,  or  which  they  saw. 

Perhaps  the  qualities  which  we  observe  in  the  religion,  may  be 
thought  to  prove  something  more.  They  would  have  been  extraor 
dinary,  had  the  religion  come  from  any  person ;  fr(^  the  person 
from  whom  it  did  come,  they  are  exceedingly  so.  What  was  Jesus 
in  external  appearance?  A  Jewish  peasant,  the  son  of  a  carpenter, 
living  with  his  father  and  mother  in  a  remote  province  of  Palestine, 
until  the  time  that  he  produced  himself  in  his  public  character.  He 
had  no  master  to  instruct  or  prompt  him^  he  had  read  no  books,  but 
the  w^orks  of  Moses  and  the  prophets  ;  he  had  visited  no  polished 
cities ;  he  had  received  no  lessons  from  Socrates  or  Plato,— nothing 
to  form  in  him  a  taste  or  judgment  different  from  that  of  the  re^  ol 
his  countrymen,  and  of  persons  of  the  same  rank  of  life  with  hum 
self.  Supposing  it  to  be  true,  which  it  is  not,  that  all  his  points  oi 
morality  might  be  picked  out  of  Greek  and  Roman  writings,  they 
were  writings  which  he  had  never  seen.  Supposing  them  to  be  no 
more  than  w'hat  some  or  other  had  taught  in  various  times  and 
places,  he  could  not  collect  them  together. 

Who  were  his  coadjutors  in  the  undertaking, — the  persons  into  < 
whose  hands  the  religion  came  after  his  death  ?  A  few  fishermen 
upon  the  lake  of  Tiberias,  persons  just  as  uneducated,  and,  lor  the 
purpose  of  framing  rules  of  morality,  as  unpromising  as  himse  t. 
Suppose  the  mission  to  be  real,  all  this  is  accounted  for ;  the  un¬ 
suitableness  of  the  authors  to  the  production,  of  the  characters  to 
the  undertaking,  no  longer,  surprises  us :  but  without  reality,  u  is 
very  difficult  to  explain,  how  such  a  system  should  proceed  trom 
such  persons.  Christ  was  not  like  any  other  carpenter ;  the  apos¬ 
tles  were  not  like  any  other  fishermen. 

Blit  the  subject  is  not  exhausted  by  these  observations,  lhat 
portion  of  it,  which  is  most  reducible  to  points  of  argument,  has  been 
stated,  and,  I  trust,  truly.  There  are,  however,  some  topics  of  a  ■ 
more  diffuse  nature,  which  yet  deserve  to  be  proposed  to  the 

reader’s  attention.  . 

The  character  of  Christ  is  a  part  of  the  morality  of  the  gospel :  one 
strong  observation  upon  which  is,  that,  neither  as  represented  by 
his  followers,  nor  as  attacked  by  his  enemies,  is  he  charpd  with 
any  personal  vice.  This  remark  is  as  old  as  Origen :  ‘  Though  in¬ 
numerable  lies  and  calumnies  had  been  forged  against  the  venerm 
ble  Jesus,  none  had  dared  to  charge  him  with  an  intemperance. 
Not  a  reflection  upon  his  moral  character,  not  an  imputation  or  sus¬ 
picion  of  any  offence  against  purity  and  chastity,  appears  for  five 
hundred  years  after  his  birth.  This  faultlessness  is  more  peculiar 
than  we  are  apt  to  imagine.  Some  stain  pollutes  the  morals  or  the 


*  Or.  Ep.  Cels.  1.  3.  mim.  36.  ed.  Bened. 


I 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  159 

morality  of  almost  every  other  teacher,  and  of  every  other  lawgiver.* 
Zeno  the  stoic,  and  Diogenes  the  cynic,  fell  into  the  foulest  impuri¬ 
ties;  of  which  also  Socrates  himself  was  more  than  suspected. 
Solon  forbade  unnatural  crimes  to  slaves,  Lycurgus  tolerated  theft 
as  a  part  of  education.  Plato  recommended  a  community  of  women. 
Aristotle  maintained  the  general  right  of  making  war  upon  barba¬ 
rians.  The  elder  Cato  was  remarkable  for  the  ill  usage  of  his 
slaves :  the  younger  gave  up  the  person  of  his  wife.  One  loose 
principle  is  found  in  almost  all  the  Pagan  moralists ;  is  distinctly, 
however,  perceived  in  the  writings  of  Plato,  Xenophon,  Cicero, 
Seneca,  Epictetus ;  and  that  is,  the  allowing,  and  even  the  recom¬ 
mending  to  their  disciples,  a  compliance  with  the  religion,  and  with 
the  religious  rites,  of  every  country  into  which  they  came.  In 
speaking  of  the  founders  of  new  institutions,  we  cannot  forget  Ma¬ 
homet.  His  licentious  transgressions  of  his  own  licentious  rules ; 
his  abuse  of  the  character  which  he  assumed,  and  of  the  power 
which  he  had  acquired,  for  the  purposes  of  personal  and  privileged 
indulgence ;  his  avowed  claim  of  a  special  permission  from  heaven 
of  unlimited  sensuality,  is  known  to  every  reader,  as  it  is  confessed 
by  every  writer,  of  the  Moslem  story. 

Secondly,  In  the  histories  which  are  left  us  of  Jesus  Christ,  al¬ 
though  very  short,  and  although  dealing  in  narrative,  and  not  in 
!  observation  or  panegyric,  we  perceive,  beside  the  absence  of  every 
appearance  of  vice,  traces  of  devotion,  humility,  benignity,  mildness, 
patience,  prudence.  I  speak  of  traces  of  these  qualities,  because 
the  qualities  themselves  are  to  be  collected  from  incidents ;  inas¬ 
much  as  the  terms  are  never  used  of  Christ  in  the  Gospels,  nor  is 
any  formal  character  of  him  drawn  in  any  part  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment 

Thus  we  see  the  devmtness  of  his  mind,  in  his  frequent  retirement 
to  solitary  prayer  ;t  in  his  habitual  giving  of  thanks  in  his  refer¬ 
ence  of  the  beauties  and  operations  of  nature  to  the  bounty  of  Provi¬ 
dence  ;$  in  his  earnest  addresses  to  his  F ather,  more  particularly  that 
short  but  solemn  one  before  the  raising  of  Lazarus  from  the  dead  ,i! 
and  in  the  deep  piety  of  his  behavior  in  the  garden,  on  the  last 
evening  of  his  life  N  his  humility,  in  his  constant  reproof  of  conten 
tions  for  superiority  •**  the  benignity  and  affectionateness  of  his  tem¬ 
per,  in  his  kindness  to  children  ;tt  in  the  tears  which  he  shed  over 
his  failing  country and  upon  the  death  of  his  friend  ;§$  in  his 
noticing  of  the  widow’s  mite  ;llll  in  his  parables  of  the  good  Samari¬ 
tan,  of  the  ungrateful  servant,  and  of  the  Pharisee  and  pubhcan,  of 
which  parables  no  one  but  a  man  of  humanity  could  have  been  the 


*  See  many  instances  collected  by  Grotius,  de  VeritateChristianse  Re- 
ligionis,  in  the  notes  to  the  second  book,  p.  116.  Pocock’s  edition, 
t  Matt.  xiv.  23.  Luke  ix.  28.  Matt.  xxvi.  36. 
t  Matt.  xi.  25  Mark  viii.  6.  John  vi.  23.  Luke  xxii.  17 
§Matt.  vi.26 — 28.  |(  John  xi.  41.  IT  Matt.  xxvi.  36 — 47. 

**  Mark  ix.  33.  tt  Mark  x.  16.  It  Luke  xix.  41. 

§§  John  xi.  35.  ll||  Mark  xii.  42. 


160 


Paleyi’s  View  of  the 

author :  the  mildness  and  lenity  of  his  character  is  discovered,  in  hi" 
rebuke  of  the  forward  zeal  of  his  disciples  at  the  Samaritan  vil¬ 
lage  •*  in  his  expostulation  with  Pilate  ;t  in  his  prayer  for  his  ene¬ 
mies  at  the  moment  of  his  suffering,!  which,  though  it  has  beer, 
since  very  properly  and  frequently  imitated,  w  as  then,  I  apprehend 
new.  His  prudence  is  discerned,  where  prudence  is  most  wanted, 
in  his  conduct  on  trying  occasions,  and  in  answers  to  artful  ques¬ 
tions.  Of  these,  the  following  are  examples : — His  withdrawing,  ir 
various  instances,  from  the  first  symptoms  of  tuniult,^  and  with  the 
express  care,  as  appears  from  Saint  Matthew%||  of  carrying  on  his 
ministry  in  quietness ;  his  declining  every  species  of  interference 
with  the  civil  affairs  of  the  country,  which  disposition  is  manifested 
hy  his  behavior  in  the  case  of  the  woman  caught  in  adultery,ir  and 
in  his  repulse  of  the  application  which  was  made  to  him,  to  inter¬ 
pose  his  decision  about  a  disputed  inheritance  :**  his  judicious,  yet, 
as  it  should  seem,  unprepared  answers,  will  be  confessed  in  the 
case  of  the  Roman  tribute  ,*tt  in  the  difficulty  concerning  the  inter¬ 
fering  relations  of  a  future  state,  as  proposed  to  him  in  the  instance 
of  a  woman  who  had  married  seven  brethren  and,  more  espe¬ 
cially,  in  his  reply  to  those  who  demanded  from  him  an  explanation 
of  the  authority  by  which  he  acted,  wffiich  reply  consisted,  in  pro¬ 
pounding  a  question  to  them,  situated  between  the  very  difficulties 
into  w'hich  they  were  insidiously  endeavoring  to  draw  MmM 

Our  Saviour’s  lessons,  besides  what  has  already  been  remarked 
in  them,  touch,  and  that  oftentimes  by  very  affecting  representations, 
upon  some  of  the  most  interesting  topics  of  human  duty,  and  of 
human  meditation :  upon  the  principles,  by  which  the  decisions  of 
the  last  day  will  be  regulated  ;|lll  upon  the  superior,  or  rather  the 
supreme,  importance  of  religion  :1F IT  upon  penitence,  by  the  most 
pressing  calls  and  the  most  encouraging  invitations  ;***  upon  self- 
denial,ttt  watchfulness,!!!  placability ,§$§  confidence  in  God,|||lll  the 
value  of  spiritual,  that  is,  of  mental  worship,iririr  the  necessity  of 
moral  obedience,  and  the  directing  of  that  obedience  to  the  spirit 
and  principle  of  the  law,  instead  of  seeking  for  evasions  in  a  tech¬ 
nical  construction  of  its  terms.***'*' 

If  we  extend  our  argument  to  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament, 
we  may  offer,  as  amongst  the  best  and  shortest  rules  of  life,  or, 
which  IS  the  same  thing,  descriptions  of  virtue,  that  have  ever  been 
delivered,  the  following  passages  : 

‘  Pure  religion,  and  undefiled,  before  God  and  the  Father,  is  this , 


*  Luke  ix.  55.  f  John  xix.  11. 

§  Matt.  xiv.  22.  Luke  v.  15, 16.  John  v.  13.  vi.  15. 
IT  John  viii.  1.  **  Lnke  xii.  14. 

!!  Matt.  xxii.  28.  §§  Matt.  xxi.  23,  &c. 

ITir  Mark  viii.  35.  Matt.  vi.  31 — 33.  Luke  xii.  4, 5. 

***  Luke  XV.  ttt  Matt.  v.  29. 

Jt!  Mark  xiii.  37.  Matt.  xxiv.  42. — xxv.  13. 

§§§  Luke  xvii.  4.  Matt,  xviii.  33,  &c. 

WIT  John  iv.  23,24. 


!  Luke  xxiii.  34. 

11  Chap.  xii.  19. 
tt  Matt.  xxii.  19. 

Il’ll  Matt.  xxv.  31,  &.C 
16—21. 


mill  Matt.  vi.  25—30. 
****  Matt.  v.21. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  161 

to  visit  the  fatherless  and  widows  in  their  affliction,  and  to  keep 
himself  unspotted  from  the  world.’* 

‘Now  the  end  of  the  commandment  is,  charity,  out  of  a  pure 
heart  and  a  good  conscience,  and  faith  unfeigned.’t 

‘For  the  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation,  hath  appeared  to 
all  men,  teaching  us,  that  denying  ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts, 
we  should  live  soberly,  righteously,  and  godly,  in  this  present 
world.’t 

Enumerations  of  virtues  and  vices,  and  those  sufficiently  accu¬ 
rate,  and  unquestionably  just,  are  given  by  Saint  Paul  to  his  con¬ 
verts  in  three  several  Epistles.§ 

The  relative  duties  of  husbands  and  wives,  of  parents  and  chil¬ 
dren,  of  masters  and  servants,  of  Christian  teachers  and  their  flocks, 
of  governors  and  their  subjects,  are  set  forth  by  the  same  writer, 1| 
not  indeed  with  the  copiousness,  the  detail,  or  the  distinctness,  of  a 
moralist,  who  should,  in  these  days,  sit  down  to  write  chapters  upon 
the  subject,  but  with  the  leading  rules  and  principles  in  each ;  and, 
above  all,  with  truth,  and  with  authority. 

Lastly,  the  whole  volume  of  the  New  Testament  is  replete  with 
jiiety ;  with,  what  were  almost  unknown  to  heathen  moralists,  devo¬ 
tional  virtues,  the  most  profound  veneration  of  the  Deity,  an  habitual 
sense  of  his  bounty  and  protection,  a  firm  confidence  in  the  final 
result  of  his  counsels  and  dispensations,  a  disposition  to  resort,  upon 
all  occasions,  to  his  mercy,  for  the  supply  of  human  wants,  for  assist¬ 
ance  in  danger,  for  relief  from  pain,  for  the  pardon  of  sin. 


CHAP.  III. 

The  Candor  of  the  Writers  of  the  New  Testament. 

I  MAKE  this  candor  to  consist,  in  their  putting  down  many  pas¬ 
sages,  and  noticing  many  circumstances,  which  no  writer  whatever 
was  likely  to  have  forged  ;  and  which  no  writer  would  have  chosen 
to  appear  in  his  book,  who  had  been  careful  to  present  the  story  in 
the  most  unexceptionable  form,  or  who  had  thought  himself  at  lib¬ 
erty  to  carve  and  mould  the  particulars  of  that  story,  according  to 
his  choice,  or  according  to  his  judgment  of  the  effect, 

A  strong  and  well-known  example  of  the  fairness  of  the  evan¬ 
gelists,  offers  itself  in  their  account  of  Christ’s  resurrection,  namely, 
in  their  unanimously  stating,  that  after  he  was  risen,  he  appeared  to 
his  disciples  alone,  I  do  not  mean  that  they  have  used  the  exclusive 
word  alone;  but  that  all  the  instances  which  they  have  recorded 
of  his  appearance,  are  instances  of  appearance  to  his  disciples ;  that 
their  reasonings  upon  it,  and  allusions  to  it,  are  confined  to  this  sup¬ 
position  ;  and  that,  by  one  of  them,  Peter  is  made  to  say,  ‘  Him  God 


*  James  i.  27.  f  1  Tim.  i.  5.  J  Tit.  ii.  11, 12. 

6  Gal.  V.  19.  Col.  iii.  12.  1  Cor.  xiii. 
y  Eph.  V.  33.  vi.  1.  S.  2  Cor.  vi.  6, 7.  Rom.  xiii. 


162 


Paley’^s  View  of  the 

raised  up  the  third  day,  and  showed  him  openly,  not  to  all  the  peo¬ 
ple,  but  to  witnesses  chosen  before  of  God,  even  to  us,  who  did  eat 
and  drink  with  him  after  he  rose  from  the  dead.’*  The  most  com¬ 
mon  understanding  must  have  perceived,  that  the  history  of  the 
resurrection  would  have  come  with  more  advantage,  if  they  had 
related  that  Jesus  appeared,  after  he  was  risen,  to  his  foes  as  well 
as  his  friends,  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  the  Jewish  council,  and 
the  Roman  governor:  or  even  if  they  had  asserted  the  public  ap¬ 
pearance  of  Christ  in  general  unqualified  terms,  without  noticing, 
as  they  have  done,  the  presence  of  his  disciples  on  each  occasion, 
and  noticing  it  in  such  a  manner  as  to  lead  their  readers  to  suppose 
that  none  but  disciples  were  present.  They  could  have  represented 
It  in  one  way  as  well  as  the  other.  And  if  their  point  had  been,  to 
have  the  religion  believed,  whether  true  or  false ;  if  they  had  fabri¬ 
cated  the  story  ah  initio ;  or  if  they  had  been  disposed  either  to  have 
delivered  their  testimony  as  witnesses,  or  to  have  worked  up  their 
materials  and  information  as  historians,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  ren¬ 
der  their  narrative  as  specious  and  unobjectionable  as  they  could  ; 
in  a  word,  if  they  had  thought  of  any  thing  but  of  the  truth  of  the 
case,  as  they  understood  and  believed  it ;  they  would,  in  their  ac¬ 
count  of  Christ’s  several  appearances  after  his  resurrection,  at  least 
have  omitted  this  restriction.  At' this  distance  of  time,  the  account 
as  we  have  it,  is  perhaps  more  credible  than  it  would  have  been  the 
other  way ;  because  this  manifestation  of  the  historian’s  candor,  is 
of  more  advantage  to  their  testimony,  than  the  difference  in  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  of  the  account  would  have  been  to  the  nature  of  the 
evidence.  But  this  is  an  effect  which  the  evangelists  would  not 
foresee :  and  I  think  that  it  was  by  no  means  the  case  at  the  time 
when  the  books  were  composed. 

Mr.  Gibbon  has  argued  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Koran,  from 
the  confessions  which  it  contains  to  the  apparent  disadvantage  of 
the  Mahometan  cause.t  The  same  defence  vindicates  the  genuine¬ 
ness  of  our  Gospels,  and  without  prejudice  to  the  cause  at  all. 

There  are  some  other  inferences  in  which  the  evangelists  honestly 
relate  what,  they  must  have  perceived,  would  make  against  them. 

Of  this  kind  is  John  the  Baptist’s  message,  preserved  by  Saint 
Matthew,  (xi.  2.)  and  Saint  Luke  (vii.  18.) :  ‘  Now  when  John  had 
heard  in  the  prison  the  works  of  Christ,  he  sent  two  of  his  disciples, 
and  said  unto  him.  Art  thou  he  that  should  come,  or  look  we  for  an¬ 
other  ?’  To  confess,  still  more  to  state,  that  John  the  Baptist  had  his 
doubts  concerning  the  character  of  Jesus,  could  not  but  afford  a 
handle  to  cavil  and  objection.  But  truth,  like  honesty,  neglects  ap¬ 
pearances.  The  same  observation,  perhaps,  holds  concerning  the 
apostasy  of  Judas,  j; 


*  Acts  X.  40,  41.  t  Vol.  i.x.  c.  50,  note  96. 

J  I  had  once  placed  amongst  these  examples  of  fair  concession,  the 
remarkable  words  of  Saint  Matthew,  in  his  account  of  Christ’s  appear¬ 
ance  upon  the  Galilean  mountain  :  ‘And  when  they  saw  him,  they  wor 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 


163 


John  vi.  66.  ‘  From  that  time,  many  of  his  disciples  went  back, 
and  walked  no  more  with  him.’  Was  it  the  part  of  a  writer,  who 
dealt  in  suppression  and  disguise,  to  put  down  tins  anecdote  ? 

Or  this,  which  Matthew  has  preserved?  (xii.  58.)  ‘He  did  not 
many  mighty  works  there,  because  of  their  unbelief.’ 

Again,  in  the  same  evangelist :  (v.  17,  18.)  ‘Think  not  that  I  am 
come  to  destroy  the  law  and  the  prophets ;  1  am  not  come  to  destroy, 
but  to  fulfil :  for,  verily,  1  say  unto  you.  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass, 
one  jot,  or  one  tittle,  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be 
fulfilled.’  At  the  time  the  Gospels  were  written,  the  apparent  ten¬ 
dency  of  Christ’s  mission  was  to  diminish  the  authority  of  the  Mo¬ 
saic  code,  and  it  was  so  considered  by  the  Jews  themselves.  It  is 
very  improbable,  therefore,  that,  without  the  constraint  of  truth, 
Matthew  should  have  ascribed  a  saying  to  Christ,  which,  primo  in¬ 
tuitu,  militated  with  the  judgment  of  the  age  in  which  his  Gospel 
was  written.  Marcion  thought  this  text  so  objectionable  that  he 
dtered  the  words,  so  as  to  invert  the  sense.* 

Once  more  :  (Acts  xxv.  18,  19.)  ‘  They  brought  none  accusations 
against  him,  of  such  things  as  I  supposed,  but  had  certain  questions 
against  him  of  their  own  superstition,  and  of  one  Jesus  which  was 
dead,  whom  Paul  affirmed  to  be  alive.’  Nothing  could  be  more  in 
the  character  of  a  Roman  governor  than  these  words.  But  that  is 
not  precisely  the  point  I  am  concerned  with.  A  mere  panegyrist, 
or  a  dishonest  narrator,  would  not  have  represented  his  cause,  or 
have  made  a  great  magistrate  represent  it,  in  this  manner  ;  i.  e.  in 
terms  not  a  little  disparaging,  and  bespeaking,  on  his  part,  much 
unconcern  and  indifference  about  the  matter.  The  same  observa¬ 
tion  may  be  repeated  of  the  speech  which  is  ascribed  to  Gallio, 
(Acts  xviii.  15.)  ‘  If  it  be  a  question  of  words  and  names,  and  of 
your  law',  look  ye  to  it;  for  I  w'ill  be  no  judge  of  such  matters. 

Lastly,  where  do  we  discern  a  stronger  mark  of  candor,  or  less 
disposition  to  extol  and  magnify,  than  in  the  conclusion  of  the  same 
history?  in  which  the  evangelist,  after  relating  that  Paul,  on  his  first 
arrival  at  Rome,  preached  to  the  Jews  from  morning  until  evening, 
adds,  ‘And  some  believed  the  things  which  were  spoken,  and  some 
believed  not.’ 


shipped  him  ;  hut  some  douhtcd.'X  I  have  since,  however,  been  convinced 
by  what  is  observed  concerning  this  passage  in  Dr.  Townshend’s  dis¬ 
course!  upon  the  resurrection,  that  the  transaction,  as  related  by  Saint 
Matthew,  was  really  this:  ‘Christ  appeared  first  at  a  distance;  the 
greater  part  of  the  company,  the  moment  they  saw  him,  worshipped,  but 
some,  as  yet.  i.  e.  upon  the  first  distant  view  of  his  person,  doubted  ;  where- 
upon  Christ  came  vp§  to  them,  and  spake  to  them,’  &c.  :  that  the  doubt, 
therefore,  was  only  a  doubt  at  first,  for  a  moment,  and  upon  his  being 
seen  at  a  distance,  and  was  afterward  dispelled  by  his  nearer  approach, 
and  by  his  entering  into  conversation  with  them. 

*  Lardiier,  Cred.  vol.  xv.  p.  452. 


t  Chap,  xxviii.  17.  1 

S  Saint  Matthew’s  words  are.  Kat  Trpoas'Xdwv  b  Irytrotis-,  cAaXmev  avTOir.  This 
intimates,  that,  when  he  first  appeared,  it  was  at  a  distance,  at  least  from  many  of  the  specta¬ 
tors.  Ib.  p.  197. 


164 


Paley's  View  of  the 

The  following,  I  think,  are  passages  which  were  very  unlikely 
to  have  presented  themselves  to  the  mind  of  a  forger  or  a  fabulist. 

Matt.  xxi.  21.  ‘Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them.  Verily,  I  say 
unto  you.  If  ye  have  faith,  and  doubt  not,  ye  shall  not  only  do  this 
which  is  done  unto  the  fig-tree,  but  also,  if  ye  shall  say  unto  this 
mountain.  Be  thou  removed,  and  be  thou  cast  into  the  sea,  it  shall 
be  done  ;  all  things  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  prayer,  believing,  it 
shall  be  done."*  It  appears  to  me  very  improbable  that  these  words 
should  have  been  put  into  Christ’s  mouth,  if  he  had  not  actually 
spqlmn  them.  The  term  ‘faith,’  as  here  used,  is  perhaps  rightly 
interpreted  of  confidence  in  that  internal  notice,  by  which  the  apos¬ 
tles  were  admonished  of  their  power  to  perform  any  particular 
miracle.  And  this  exposition  renders  the  sense  of  the  text  more 
easy.  But  the  words,  undoubtedly,  in  their  obvious  construction, 
carry  with  them  a  difficulty,  which  no  writer  would  have  brought 
upon  himself  officiously. 

Luke  ix.  59.  ‘  And  he  said  unto  another.  Follow  me :  but  he 
said.  Lord,  suffer  me  first  to  go  and  bury  my  father.  Jesus  said 
unto  him.  Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead,  but  go  thou  and  preach  the 
kingdom  of  God.’t  This  answer,  though  very  expressive  of  the 
transcendent  importance  of  religious  concerns,  was  apparently  hareh 
and  repulsive  ;  and  such  as  would  not  have  been  made  for  Christ, 
if  he  had  not  really  used  it.  At  least  some  other  instances  would 
have  been  chosen. 

The  following  passage,  I,  for  the  jiame  reason,  think  impossible  to 
have  been  the  production  of  artifice,  or  of  a  cold  forgery : — ‘  But  I 
say  unto  you.  That  whosoever  is  angry  with  his  brother  without  a 
cause,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment ;  and  whosoever  shall  say 
to  his  brother,  Raca,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  council ;  but  whoso¬ 
ever  shall  say.  Thou  fool,  shall  be  in  danger  of  hell-fire  (Gehennas).’ 
Matt.  V.  22.  It  is  emphatic,  cogent,  and  well  calculated  for  the 
purpose  of  impression ;  but  is  inconsistent  with  the  supposition  of 
art  or  wariness  on  the  part  of  the  relater. 

The  short  reply  of  our  Lord  to  Mary  Magdalen,  after  his  resur¬ 
rection,  (John  XX.  16,  17.)  ‘Touch  me  not,  for  I  am  not  yet  ascended 
unto  my  Father,’  in  my  opinion,  must  have  been  founded  in  a  refer¬ 
ence  or  allusion  to  some  prior  conversation,  for  the  w'ant  of  know¬ 
ing  which,  his  meaning  is  hidden  from  us.  This  ve?-y  obscurity, 
however,  is  a  proof  of  genuineness.  No  one  would  have  forged 
such  an  answer. 

John  vi.  The  whole  of  the  conversation  recorded  in  this  chapter, 
is,  in  the  highest  degree,  unlikely  to  be  fabricated,  especially  the 
part  of  our  Saviour’s  reply  between  the  fiftieth  and  the  fifty-eighth 
verse.  I  need  only  put  down  the  first  sentence :  ‘  I  am  the  living 
bread  which  came  down  from  heaven :  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread, 
he  shall  live  for  ever:  and  the  bread  that  I  will  give  him  is  my 
flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world.’  Without  calling 
in  question  the  expositions  that  have  been  given  of  this  passage,  we 


♦  See  also  chap.  xvii.  20^  Luke  xvii.  C. 


t  See  also  Matt.  viii.  21. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  165 

niay  be  permitted  to  say,  that  it  labors  under  an  obscurity,  in  which 
it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  any  one,  who  made  speeches  for  the 
persons  of  his  narrative,  would  have  voluntarily  involved  them. 
That  this  discourse  was  obscure,  even  at  the  time,  is  confessed  by 
the  writer  who  had  preserved  it,  when  he  tells  us,  at  the  conclu- 
Sion,  that  many  of  our  Lord’s  disciples,  when  they  had  heard  this, 
said,  ‘  This  is  a  hard  saying ;  who  can  bear  it  V 

Christ’s  taking  of  a  young  child,  and  placing  it  in  the  midst  of  his 
contentious  disciples,  (Matt,  xviii.  2.)  though  as  decisive  a  proof  as 
could  be,  of  the  benignity  of  his  temper,  and  very  expressive  of  the 
character  of  the  religion  which  he  wished  to  inculcate,  was  not  by 
any  means  an  obvious  thought.  Nor  am  I  acquainted  with  any 
thing  in  any  ancient  waiting  which  resembles  it. 

The  account  of  the  institution  of  the  eucharist  bears  strong  inter¬ 
nal  marks  of  genuineness.  If  it  had  been  feigned,  it  would  have 
been  more  full ;  it  would  have  come  nearer  to  the  actual  mode  of 
celebrating  the  rite,  as  that  mode  obtained  very  early  in  Christian 
churches :  and  it  would  have  been  more  formal  than  it  is.  In  the 
forged  piece,  called  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  the  apostles  are 
made  to  enjoin  many  parts  of  the  ritual  which  was  in  use  in  the 
second  and  third  centuries,  with  as  much  particularity  as  a  modern 
rubric  could  have  done.  Whereas,  in  the  History  of  the  Lord’s 
supper,  as  we  read  it  in  Saint  Matthew’s  Gospel,  there  is  not  so 
much  as  the  command  to  repeat  it.  This,  surely,  looks  like  unde¬ 
signedness.  I  foink  also  that  the  difficulty  arising  from  the  con¬ 
ciseness  of  Christ’s  expression,  ‘This  is  my  body,’  would  have  been 
avoided  in  a  made-up  story.  I  allow  that  the  explications  of  these 
words,  given  by  Protestants,  is  satisfactory;  but  it  is  deduced  from 
a  diligent  cornparisqn  of  the  words  in  question  with  forms  of  ex¬ 
pression  used  in  Scripture,  and  especially  by  Christ  upon  other  oc¬ 
casions.  No  writer  would  arbitrarily  and  unnecessarily  have  thus 
cast  in  his  reader’s  way  a  difficulty,  wfoich,  to  say  the  least,  it  re¬ 
quired  research  and  erudition  to  clear  up. 

Now  it  ought  to  be  observed,  that  the  argument  which  is  built 
upon  these  examples,  extends  both  to  the  authenticity  of  the  books 
and  to  the  truth  of  the  narrative  :  for  it  is  improbable  that  the  forger 
of  a  history  in  the  name  of  another  should  have  inserted  such  pas¬ 
sages  into  it:  and  it  is  improbable  also,  that  the  persons  whose 
names  the  books  bear  should  have  fabricated  such  passages;  or 
even  have  allowed  them  a  place  in  their  wurk,  if  they  had  not  be¬ 
lieved  them  to  express  the  truth. 

The  following  observation,  therefore,  of  Dr.  Lardner,  the  most 
candid  of  all  advocates,  and  the  most  cautious  of  all  inquirers,  seems 
to  be  well-founded  : — ‘  Christians  are  induced  to  believe  the  writers 
of  the  Gospel,  by  observing  the  evidences  of  piety  and  probity  that 
appear  in  their  yiTitings,  in  which  there  is  no  deceit,  or  artifice,  or 
cunning,  or  design.’  ‘  No  remarks,’  as  Dr.  Beattie  hath  properly 
said,  ‘  are  thrown  in,  to  anticipate  objections ;  nothing  of  that  cau¬ 
tion,  wliich  never  fails  to  distinguish  the  testimony  of  those  who  are 


166  Paley^s  View  of  the 

conscious  of  imposture ;  no  endeavors  to  reconcile  the  reader’s 
mind  to  what  may  be  extraordinary  in  the  narrative. 

I  beg  leave  to  cite  also  another  author who  has  well  expressed 
the  reflection  which  the  examples  noAV  brought  forward  were  m- 
tended  to  suggest.  ‘It  doth  not  appear  that  ever  it  came  into  the 
mind  of  these  writers,  to  consider  how  this  or  the  other  action  would 
appear  to  mankind,  or  what  objections  might  be  raised  upon  them. 
But  without  at  all  attending  to  this,  they  lay  the  facts  before  you, 
at  no  pains  to  think  whether  they  would  appear  credible  or  not.  If 
the  reader  will  not  believe  their  testimony,  there  is  no  help  for  it : 
they  tell  the  truth,  and  attend  to  nothing  else.  Surely  this  looks 
like  sincerity,  and  that  they  published  nothing  to  the  world  but 
what  they  believed  themselves.’ 

As  no  improper  supplement  to  this  chapter,  I  crave  a,  place  here 
for  observing  the  extreme  naturalness  of  some  of  the  things  related 
in  the  New  Testament. 

Mark  ix.  23.  ‘Jesus  said  unto  him.  If  thou  canst  beheve,  all 
things  are  possible  to  him  that  belie veth.  And  straightway  the 
father  of  the  child  cried  out  .  and  said  with  tears.  Lord,  I  believe ; 
help  thou  mine  unbelief.’  The  struggle  in  the  fathers  heart,  be¬ 
tween  solicitude  for  the  preservation  of  his  child,  and  a  kind  of  in¬ 
voluntary  distrust  of  Christ’s  power  to  heal  him,  is  here  expressed 
with  an  air  of  reality,  which  could  hardly  be  counterfeited. 

Again,  (Matt.  xxi.  9.)  the  eagerness  of  the  people  to  introduce 
Christ  into  Jerusalem,  and  their  demand,  a  short  time  afterward,  of 
his  crucifixion,  when  he  did  not  turn  out  what  they  expected  him 
to  be,  so  far  from  affording  matter  of  objection,  represents  popular 
favor  in  exact  agreement  with  nature  and  with  experience,  as  the 
flux  and  reflux  of  a  wave.  . 

The  rulers  and  Pharisees  rejecting  Christ,  whilst  many  of  the 
common  people  received  him,  was  the  effoct  which,  in  the  then 
state  of  Jewish  prejudices,  I  should  have  expected.  And  the  reason 
with  which  they  who  rejected  Christ’s  mission  kept  themselves  in 
countenance,  and  with  which  also  they  answered  the  arguments  of 
those  who  favored  it,  is  precisely  the  reason  which  such  men 
usually  give : — ‘  Have  any  of  the  scribes  or  Pharisees  believed  on 

him  V  (John  vii.  48.)  _  .r',,  •  j 

In  our  Lord’s  conversation  at  the  well  (John  iv.  29.)  Christ  had 
surprised  the  Samaritan  woman  with  an  allusion  to  a  single  particu¬ 
lar  in  her  domestic  situation,  ‘  Thou  hast  had  five  husbands ;  and 
he,  whom  thou  now  hast,  is  not  thy  husband.’  The  woman,  soon 
after  this,  ran  back  to  the  city,  and  called  out  to  her  neighbors, 
'  Come,  see  a  man  which  told  me  all  things  that  ever  I  did.’  This 
exaggeration  appears  to  me  very  natural ;  especially  in  the  hurried 
state  of  spirits  into  which  the  woman  may  be  supposed  to  have  been 
thrown. 

The  laAvyer’s  subtilty  in  running  a  distinction  upon  the  word 
neighbor,  in  the  precept,  ‘Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,’ 


*  Duchal,  p.  97,  98. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  167 

was  no  less  natural,  than  our  Saviour’s  answer  was  decisive  and 
satisfactory  (Luke  x.  29.)  The  lawyer  of  the  New  Testament,  it 
must  be  observed,  was  a  Jewish  divme. 

The  behavior  of  Gallio  (Acts  xviii.  12 — 17.)  and  of  Festus  (xxv.  18, 
19.)  have  been  observed  upon  already. 

The  consistency  of  Saint  Paul’s  character  throughout  the  whole 
of  his  history  {viz.  the  warmth  and  activity  of  his  zeal,  first  against, 
^f  t  ^^h^  Christianity),  carries  with  it  very  much  the  appearance 

There  are  also  some  prc^erties,  as  they  may  be  called,  observable 
in  the  Gospels  :  that  is,  circumstances  separately  suiting  with  the 
situation,  character,  and  intention,  of  their  respective  authors. 

Saint  Matthew,  w’ho  was  an  inhabitant  of  Galilee,  and  did  not 
join  Christ’s  society  until  some  time  after  Christ  had  come  into 
Galilee  to  preach,  has  given  us  very  little  of  his  history  prior  to  that 
period.  Saint  John,  who  had  been  converted  before,  and  who 
wrote  to  supply  omissions  in  the  other  Gospels,  relates  some  re¬ 
markable  particulars,  w'hich  had  taken  place  before  Christ  left 
Judea,  to  go  into  Galilee.’^ 

Saint  Matthew  (xv.  1.)  has  recorded  the  cavil  of  the  Pharisees 
against  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  for  eating  ‘  with  unclean  hands.’ 
Saint  Mark  has  also  (vii.  1.)  recorded  the  same  transaction  (taken 
probably  from  Saint  Matthew),  but  with  this  addition;  ‘For  the 
Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  often, 
eat  not,  holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders :  and  when  they  come 
from  the  market,  except  they  w  ash,  they  eat  not :  and  many  other 
things  there  be  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  washing 
of  cups  and  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables.’  Now  Saint  Mat¬ 
thew'  was  not  only  a  Jew  himself,  but  it  is  evident,  from  the  whole 
structure  of  his  Gospel,  especially  from  his  numerous  references  to 
the  Old  Testament,  that  he  wrote  for  Jewish  readers.  The  above 
explanation,  therefore,  in  him,  would  have  been  unnatural,  as  not 
being  wanted  by  the  readers  whom  he  addressed.  But  in  Mark, 
vvho,  whatever  use  he  might  make  of  Matthew’s  Gospel,  intended 
his  own  narrative  for  a  general  circulation,  and  w'ho  himself  trav¬ 
elled  to  distant  countries  in  the  service  of  the  religion,  it  was 
properly  added. 


CHAP.  IV. 

Identity  of  Christ's  Character. 

The  argument  expressed  by  this  title,  I  apply  principally  to  the 
comparison  of  the  first  three  Gospels  with  that  of  Saint  John.  It  is 
known  to  every  reader  of  Scripture,  that  the  passages  of  Christ’s 
history,  preserved  by  Saint  John,  are,  except  his  passion  and  resur¬ 
rection,  for  the  most  part,  different  from  those  which  are  delivered 


*  Hartley’s  Observations,  vol.  ii.  p.  103 


168  Paleyh  View  of  the 

by  the  other  evangelists.  And  I  think  the  ancient  account  of  this 
difference  to  be  the  true  one,  viz.  that  Saint  John  wrote  after  the 
rest,  and  to  supply  what  he  thought  omissions  in  their  narratives,  of 
which  the  principal  were  our  Saviour’s  conferences  with  the  Jews 
of  Jerusalem,  and  his  discourses  to  his  apostles  at  his  last  supper. 
But  what  I  observe  in  the  comparison  of  these  several  accounts  is, 
that,  although  actions  and  discourses  are  ascribed  to  Christ  by  Saint 
John,  in  general  different  from  what  are  given  to  him  by  the  other 
evangelists,  yet,  under  this  diversity,  there  is  a  similitude  of  manner, 
which  indicates  that  the  actions  and  discourses  proceeded  from  the 
sa.me  person.  I  should  have  laid  little  stress  upon  the  repetition  of 
actions  substantially  alike,  or  of  discourses  containing  many  of  the 
same  expressions,  because  that  is  a  species  of  resemblance,  which 
would  either  belong  to  a  true  history,  or  might  easily  be  imitated  in 
a  false  one.  Nor  do  I  deny,  that  a  dramatic  writer  is  able  to  sus¬ 
tain  propriety  and  distinction  of  character,  through  a  great  variety 
of  separate  incidents  and  situations.  But  the  evangelists  were  not 
dramatic  writers;  nor  possessed  the  talents  of  dramatic  writers; 
nor  will  it,  I  believe,  be  suspected,  that  they  studied  uniformity  of 
character,  or  ever  thought  of  any  such  thing,  in  the  person  who  was 
the  subject  of  their  histories.  Such  uniformity,  if  it  exists,  is  on 
their  part  casual ;  and  if  there  be,  as  1  contend  there  is,  a  percepti¬ 
ble  resemblance  of  manner,  in  passages,  and  befw'een  discourses, 
which  are  in  themselves  extremely  distinct,  and  are  delivered  by 
historians  writing  without  any  imitation  of,  or  reference  to,  one  an¬ 
other,  it  affords  a  just  presumption,  that  these  are,  what  they  pro¬ 
fess  to  be,  the  actions  and  the  discourses  of  the  same  real  person  ; 
that  the  evangelists  wrote  from  fact,  and  not  from  imagination. 

The  article  in  which  I  find  this  agreement  most  strong,  is  in  oui 
Saviour’s  mode  of  teaching,  and  in  that  particular  property  of  it. 
which  consists  in  his  drawing  of  his  doctrine  from  the  occasion ;  or 
which  is  nearly  the  same  thing,  raising  reflections  from  the  objects 
and  incidents  before  him,  or  turning  a  particular  discourse  then  pass¬ 
ing,  into  an  opportunity  of  general  instruction. 

It  will  be  my  business  to  point  out  this  manner  in  the  first  three 
evangelists ;  and  then  to  inquire,  whether  it  do  not  appear  also,  in 
several  examples  of  Christ’s  discourses,  preserved  by  Saint  John. 

The  reader  will  observe  in  the  following  quotations,  that  the  Italic 
letter  contains  the  reflection ;  the  common  letter,  the  incident  oi 
occasion  from  which  it  springs. 

Matt.  xii.  47 — 50.  ‘  Then  they  said  unto  him.  Behold,  thy  mothei 
and  thy  brethren  stand  without,  desiring  to  speak  with  thee.  But  he 
answ  ered  and  said  unto  him  that  told  him.  Who  is  my  mother  ?  anc 
w'ho  are  my  brethren?  And  he  stretched  forth  his  hand  towards 
his  disciples,  and  said.  Behold  my  mother  and  my  brethren : /or  who 
soever  shall  do  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven,  the  same  i, 
my  brother,  and  sister,  and.  mother.' 

Matt.  xvi.  5.  ‘  And  when  his  disciples  were  come  to  the  other  side 
they  had  forgotten  to  take  bread;  then  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Tah 
heed,  and  beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  and  of  the  Sadducees 


169 


Evidences  of  Christianity, 

And  they  reasoned  among  themselves,  saying,  It  is  because  we  have 
taken  no  bread. — ^How  is  it  that  ye  do  not  understand,  that  I  spake 
it  not  to  you  concerning  bread,  that  ye  should  beware  of  the  leaven 
of  the  Pharisees,  and  of  the  Sadducees?  Then  understood  they, 
how  that  he  hade  them  not  beware  of  the  leaven  of  bread,  but  of  the  DOO 
trine  of  the  Pharisees  and  of  the  Sadducees." 

Matt.  XV.  1,  2.  10,  11.  15 — 20.  ‘Then  came  to  Jesus  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  which  were  of  Jerusalem,  saying.  Why  do  thy  disciples 
transgress  the  traditions  of  the  elders?  for  they  wash  not  their  hands 

when  they  eat  bread. - And  he  called  the  multitude,  and  said 

unto  them,  Hear  and  understand :  Not  that  which  goeth  into  the  mouth 
dejileth  a  man,  but  that  which  cometh  out  of  the  mouth,  this  defileih  a 

fiian. - ^Then  answered  Peter,  and  said  unto  him.  Declare  unto  us 

this  parable.  And  Jesus  said.  Are  ye  also  yet  without  understand* 
ing?  Do  ye  not  yet  understand,  that  whatsoever  entereth  in  at  the 
mouth,  goeth  into  the  belly,  and  is  cast  out  into  the  draught  ?  but 
those  things  which  proceed  out  of  the  mouth,  come  forth  from  the 
heart,  and  they  defile  the  man :  for  out  of  the  heart  proceed  evil 
thoughts,  murders,  adulteries,  fornications,  thefts,  false  witness,  blas¬ 
phemies  ;  these  are  the  things  which  defile  a  man :  but  to  eat  with 
UNAVASHEN  HANDS  DEFILETH  NOT  A  MAN.’  Our  Saviour,  On  this 
occasion,  expatiates  rather  more  at  large  than  usual,  and  his  dis¬ 
course  also  is  more  divided:  but  the  concluding  sentence  brings 
back  the  whole  train  of  thought  to  the  incident  in  the  first  verse, 
viz.  the  objurgatory  question  of  the  Pharisees,  and  renders  it  evident 
that  the  whole  sprang  from  that  circumstance. 

Mark  x.  13—15.  ‘  And  they  brought  young  children  to  him,  that 
he  should  touch  them  ;  and  his  disciples  rebuked  those  that  brought 
them:  but  when  Jesus  saw  it,  he  was  much  displeased,  and  said 
unto  them.  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid 
them  not ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God ;  verily  I  say  unto  you, 
Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he 
shall  not  enter  therein' 

Mark  i.  16,  17.  ‘  Now  as  he  walked  by  the  sea  of  Galilee,  he  saw 
Simon  and  Andrew  his  brother  casting  a  net  into  the  sea,  for  they 
were  fishers :  and  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Come  ye  after  me,  and  I wul 
make  you  fishers  of  men.' 

Luke  xi.  27.  ‘  And  it  came  to  pass  as  he  spake  these  things,  a  cer¬ 
tain  woman  of  the  company  lifted  up  her  voice,  and  said  unto  him. 
Blessed  is  the  womb  that  bare  thee,  and  the  paps  which  thou  hast 
sucked  :  but  he  said.  Yea,  rather  blessed  are  they  that  hear  the  word 
of  God  and  keep  it.' 

Luke  xiii.  1 — 3.  ‘  There  were  present  at  that  season,  some  that 
told  him  of  the  Galileans,  whose  blood  Pilate  had  mingled  with  their 
sacrifices ;  and  Jesus  answering,  said  unto  them.  Suppose  ye,  that 
these  Galileans  were  sinners  above  all  the  Galileans,  because  they  suf¬ 
fered  such  things  1  I  tell  you.  Nay :  but,  except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all 
likewise  perish: 

Luke  xiv.  15.  ‘  And  when  one  of  them  that  sat  at  meat  with  him 

27  P 


IfO  Paley's  View  of  the 

heard  these  things,  he  said  unto  him,  Blessed  is  he  that  shall  eat 
bread  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  Then  said  he  unto  him,  A  certain 
man  made  a  great  supper,  and  bade  many,'  &c.  The  par^e  is^  rather 
too  long  for  insertion,  but  affords  a  striking  instance  of  Christ  s  man¬ 
ner  of  raising  a  discourse  from  the  occasion.  Observe  also  in  the 
same  chapter  two  other  examples  of  advice,  drawn  from  the  circum¬ 
stances  of  the  entertainment  and  the  behavior  of  the  gueste.  ^ 

We  will  now  see,  how  this  manner  discovers  itself  in  ot.  John  s 

history  of  Christ.  -j  r 

John  vi.  25.  ‘  And  when  they  had  found  him  on  the  other  side  ot 
the  sea,  they  said  unto  him.  Rabbi,  when  earnest  thou  hither  ?  Jesus 
answered  them,  and  said.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  ye  seek  me  not 
because  ye  saw  the  miracles,  but  because  ye  did  eat  of  the  loaves, 
and  were  filled.  Labor  not  for  the  meat  which  perisheth,  but  jor  that 
meat  which  endureth  unto  everlasting  lije,  which  the  Son  of  man  shall 

give  unto  you’  ^  ,  . ,  , 

John  iv.  12.  ‘  Art  thou  greater  than  our  father  Abraham,  who  gave 
US  the  well,  and  drank  thereof  himself,  and  his  children,  and  his 
cattle  ?  Jesus  answered,  and  said  unto  her  (the  woman  of  Samaria), 
Whosoever  drinketh  of  this  water  shall  thirst  again ;  but  whosoever 
drinheth  of  the  water  that  I  shall  give  him,  shall  never  thirst ;  but  the 
water  that  I  shall  give  him,  shall  be  in  him  a  well  of  water,  springing 
up  into  everlasting  life.' 

John  iv.  31.  ‘In  the  mean  while, his  disciples  prayed  him,  saying. 
Master,  eat;  but  he  said  unto  them,  I  have  meat  to  eat  that  ye  know 
not  of  Therefore  said  the  disciples  one  to  another.  Hath  any  man 
brought  him  aught  to  eat  ?  J esus  saith  unto  them.  My  meat  is,  to  do 
the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  and  to  finish  his  work.' 

John  ix.  1—5.  ‘  And  as  Jesus  passed  by,  he  saw  a  man  which  was 
blind  from  his  birth ;  and  his  disciples  asked  him,  saying.  Who  did 
sin,  this  man  or  his  parents,  that  he  was  born  blind  ?  Jesus  answered. 
Neither  hath  this  man  sinned,  nor  his  parents,  but  that  the  works  ot 
God  should  be  made  manifest  in  him.  I  must  work  the  works  of  him 
that  sent  me,  while  it  is  day;  the  night  comefh,  when  no  man  can  work. 
As  long  as  1  am  in  the  world,  I  am  the  light  of  the  world.' 

John  ix.  35 — 40.  ‘Jesus  heard  that  they  had  cast  him  (the  blind 
man  above  mentioned)  out :  and  when  he  had  found  him,  he  said 
unto  him.  Dost  thou  believe  on  the  Son  of  God  ?  And  he  answered, 
and  said.  Who  is  he.  Lord,  that  1  might  believe  on  him?  And  Jesus 
said  unto  him.  Thou  hast  both  seen  him,  and  it  is  he  that  talketh 
with  thee.  And  he  said.  Lord,  1  believe ;  and  he  worshipped  him. 
And  Jesus  said,  For  judgment  I  am  come  into  this  world,  that  Viey 
which  see  not,  might  see;  and  that  they  which  see,  might  be  made  blind.’ 

All  that  the  reader  has  now  to  do,  is  to  compare  the  series  of 
examples  taken  from  Saint  John  with  the  series  of  examples 
taken  from  the  other  evangelists,  and  to  judge  whether  there 
be  not  a  visible  agreement  in  the  manner  between  them.  In  the 
above-quoted  passages,  the  occasion  is  stated,  as  well  as  the  reflec¬ 
tion.  They  seem,  therefore,  the  most  proper  for  the  purpose  of  our 
argument.  A  large,  however,  and  curious  collection  has  been  made 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  171 

by  different  writers, of  instances,  in  which  it  is  extremely  probable 
that  Christ  spoke  in  allusion  to  some  object,  or  some  occasion,  then 
before  him,  though  the  mention  of  the  occasion,  or  of  the  object,  be 
omitted  in  the  history.  I  only  observe,  that  these  instances  are  com¬ 
mon  to  Saint  John’s  Gospel  with  the  other  three. 

I  conclude  this  article  by  remarking,  that  nothing  of  this  manner 
is  perceptible  in  the  speeches  recorded  in  the  Acts,  or  in  any  other 
but  those  which  are  attributed  to  Christ,  and  that,  in  truth,  it  was  a 
very  unlikely  manner  for  a  forger  or  fabulist  to  attempt ;  and  a  man¬ 
ner  very  difficult  for  any  writer  to  execute,  if  he  had  to  supply  all 
the  materials,  both  the  incidents  and  the  observations  upon  them, 
out  of  his  own  head.  A  forger  or  a  fabulist  would  have  made  for 
Christ,  discourses  exhorting  to  virtue  and  dissuading  from  vice  in 
general  terms.  It  would  never  have  entered  into  the  thoughts  of 
either,  to  have  crowded  together  such  a  number  of  allusions  to  time, 
place,  and  other  little  circumstances,  as  occur,  for  instance,  in  the 
sermon  on  the  mount,  and  which  nothing  but  the  actual  presence 
of  the  objects  could  have  suggested.! 

IT.  There  appears  to  me  to  exist  an  affinity  between  the  history 
of  Christ’s  placing  a  little  child  in  the  midst  of  his  disciples,  as  re¬ 
lated  by  the  first  three  evangelists,t  and  the  history  of  Christ’s 
washing  his  disciples’  feet,  as  given  by  Saint  John.§  In  the  stories 
themselves  there  is  no  resemblance.  But  the  affinity  which  I 
would  point  out  consists  in  these  tw'o  articles  :  First,  that  both  sto¬ 
ries  denote  the  emulation  which  prevailed  amongst  Christ’s  disci¬ 
ples,  and  his  own  care  and  desire  to  correct  it ;  the  moral  of  both 
is  the  same.  Secondly,  that  both  stories  are  specimens  of  the  same 
manner  of  teaching,  viz.  by  action  ;  a  mode  of  emblematic  instruc¬ 
tion  extremely  peculiar,  and,  in  these  passages,  ascribed,  we  see,  to 
our  Saviour,  by  the  first  three  evangelists,  and  by  Saint  John,  in  in¬ 
stances  totally  unlike,  and  without  the  smallest  suspicion  of  their 
borrowing  from  each  other. 

III.  A  singularity  in  Christ’s  language,  which  runs  through  all 
the  evangelists,  and  which  is  found  m  those  discourses  of  Saint 
John  that  have  nothing  similar  to  them  in  the  other  Gospels,  is  the 
appellation  of  ‘  the  Son  of  man ;’  and  it  is  in  all  the  evangelists 
found  under  the  peculiar  circumstance  of  being  applied  by  Christ 
to  himself,  but  of  never  being  used  of  him,  or  towards  him,  by  any 
other  person.  It  occurs  seventeen  times  in  Matthew’s  Gospel, 
twenty  times  in  Mark’s,  twenty-one  times  in  Luke’s,  and  eleven 
times  in  John’s,  and  always  with  this  restriction. 

IV.  A  point  of  agreement  in  the  conduct  of  Christ,  as  represented 
by  his  different  historians,  is  that  of  his  withdrawing  himself  out  of 
the  way,  whenever  the  behavior  of  the  multitude  indicated  a  dis¬ 
position  to  tumult. 


*  Newton  on  Daniel,  p.  148.  note  a.  Jortin,  Dis.  p.  213.  Bishop  Law’s 
Life  of  Christ. 

t  See  Bishop  Law’s  Life  of  Christ. 

j  Matt,  xviii.  i.  Mark  ix.  33.  Luke  ix.  46.  §  Chap.  xiii.  3. 


172  Paley'’s  Vieio  of  the 

Matt.  xiv.  22.  ‘And  straightway  Jesus  constrained  his  disciples 
to  get  into  a  ship,  and  to  go  before  him  unto  the  other  side,  while 
he  sent  the  multitude  away.  And  when  he  had  sent  the  multitude 
away,  he  went  up  into  a  mountain  apart  to  pray.’ 

Luke  V.  15,  16.  ‘But  so  much  the  more  went  there  a  fame 
abroad  of  him,  and  great  multitudes  came  together  to  hear,  and  to 
be  healed  by  him  of  their  infirmities :  and  he  withdrew  himself 
into  the  wilderness,  and  prayed.’ 

With  these  quotations,  compare  the  following  from  Saint  John: 

Chap.  V.  13.  ‘  And  he  that  was  healed  wist  not  who  it  was ;  for 

Jesus  had  conveyed  himself  away,  a  multitude  being  in  that  place.’ 

Chap.  vi.  15.  ‘  When  Jesus  therefore  perceived  that  they  would 
come  and  take  him  by  force  to  make  him  a  king,  he  departed  again 
into  a  mountain  himself  alone.’ 

In  this  last  instance.  Saint  John  gives  the  motive  of  Christ’s  con¬ 
duct,  which  is  left  unexplained  by  the  other  evangelists,  who  have 
elated  the  conduct  itself 

V.  Another,  and  a  more  singular  circumstance  in  Christ’s  ministry, 
was  the  reserve,  which,  for  some  time,  and  upon  some  occasions  at 
least,  he  used  in  declaring  his  own  character,  and  his  leaving  it  to 
be  collected  from  his  works  rather  than  his  professions.  Just  rea¬ 
sons  for  this  reserve  have  been  assigned.^  But  it  is  not  what  one 
would  have  expected.  We  meet  with  it  in  Saint  Matthew’s  Gos¬ 
pel:  chap.  xvi.  20.  ‘Then  charged  he  his  disciples,  that  they 
should  tell  no  man  that  he  was  Jesus  the  Christ.’  Again,  and  upon 
a  different  occasion,  in  Saint  Mark’s  :  chap.  iii.  11.  ‘And  unclean 
spirits,  when  they  saw  him,  fell  down  before  him,  and  cried,  saying. 
Thou  art  the  Son  of  God :  and  he  straitly  charged  them  that  they 
should  not  make  him  known.’  Another  instance  similar  to  this  last 
is  recorded  by  Saint  Luke,  chap.  iv.  41.  What  we  thus  find  in  the 
three  evangelists,  appears  also  in  a  passage  of  Saint  John,  chap.  x. 
24,  25.  ‘  Then  came  the  Jews  round  about  him,  and  said  unto  him. 
How  long  dost  thou  make  us  to  doubt  ?  If  thou  be  the  Christ,  tell  us 
plainly.’  The  occasion  here  was  different  from  any  of  the  rest ;  and 
it  was  indirect.  We  only  discover  Christ’s  conduct  through  the 
upbraidings  of  his  adversaries.  But  all  this  strengthens  the  argu¬ 
ment.  I  had  rather  at  any  time  surprise  a  coincidence  in  some 
oblique  allusion,  than  read  it  in  broad  assertions., 

VI.  In  our  Lord’s  commerce  with  his  disciples,  one  very  observa¬ 
ble  particular  is  the  difficulty  which  they  found  in  understanding 
him,  when  he  spoke  to  them  of  the  future  part  of  his  history,  espe¬ 
cially  of  what  related  to  his  passion  or  resurrection.  This  difficulty 
produced,  as  was  natural,  a  wish  in  them  to  ask  for  farther  explana¬ 
tion  ;  from  which,  however,  they  appear  to  have  been  sometimes 
kept  back,  by  the  fear  of  giving  offence.  All  these  circumstances 
are  distinctly  noticed  by  Mark  and  Luke  upon  the  occasion  of  his 
informing  them  (probably  for  the  first  time),  that  the  Son  of  man 
should  be  delivered  into  the  hands  of  men.  ‘  They  understood  not,’ 


*  See  Locke’s  Reasonableness  of  Christianity. 


173 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

the  evangelists  tell  us,  ‘  this  saying,  and  it  was  hid  from  them,  that 
they  perceived  it  not :  and  they  feared  to  ask  him  of  that  saying.’ 
Luke  ix.  45.  Mark  ix.  32.  In  Saint  John’s  Gospel  w  e  have,  on  a 
diiferent  occasion,  and  in  a  different  instance,  the  same  difficvdty  of 
apprehension,  the  same  curiosity,  and  the  same  restraint : — ‘  A  little 
while,  and  ye  shall  not  see  me  :  and  again,  a  little  while,  and  ye 
shall  see  me;  because  I  go  to  the  Father.  Then  said  some  of  his 
disciples  among  themselves.  What  is  this  that  he  saith  unto  us  ?  A 
little  while,  and  ye  shall  not  see  me :  and  again,  A  little  W’hile,  and 
ye  shall  see  me  :  and.  Because  I  go  to  the  Father?  They  said  there¬ 
fore,  What  is  this  that  he  saith,  A  little  while?  we  cannot  tell  what 
he  saith.  Now  Jesus  knew  that  they  were  desirous  to  ask  him,  and 
said  unto  them,’  &c.  John  xvi.  16,  &c. 

VII.  The  meekness  of  Christ  during  his  last  sufferings,  which  is 
conspicuous  in  the  narratives  of  the  first  three  evangelists,  is  pre¬ 
served  in  that  of  Saint  John  under  separate  examples.  The  answ'er 
given  by  him,  in  Saint  John,*  when  the  high-priest  asked  him  of 
his  disciples  and  his  doctrine ;  ‘  I  spake  openly  to  the  world  ;  I  ever 
taught  in  the  synagogue,  and  in  the  temple,  whither  the  Jews  al¬ 
ways  resort ;  and  in  secret  have  I  said  nothing ;  why  askest  thou 
me  ?  ask  them  which  heard  me,  what  I  have  said  unto  them ;’  is 
very  much  of  a  piece  with  his  reply  to  the  armed  party  which 
seized  him,  as  we  read  in  Saint  Mark’s  Gospel,  and  in  Saint 
Luke’s  :t  ‘  Are  you  come  out  as  against  a  thief,  with  sw'ords  and 
with  staves  to  take  me  ?  I  was  daily  with  you  in  the  temple  leach¬ 
ing,  and  ye  took  me  not.’  In  both  answem,  we  discern  the  same 
tranquillity,  the  same  reference  to  his  public  teaching.  His  mild 
expostulation  with  Pilate,  on  two  several  occasions,  as  related  by 
Saint  John,t  is  delivered  with  the  same  unruffled  temper,  as  that 
which  conducted  him  through  the  last  scene  of  his  life,  as  described 
by  his  other  evangelists.  His  answer  in  Saint  John’s  Gospel,  to  the 
officer  who  struck  him  with  the  palm  of  his  hand,  ‘If  I  have  spoken 
evil,  bear  witness  of  the  evil ;  but  if  w’ell,  why  smitest  thou  me  ?’§ 
was  such  an  answer,  as  might  have  been-  looked  for  from  the  per¬ 
son,  who,  as  he  proceeded  to  the  place  of  execution,  bid  his  com¬ 
panions  (as  w'e  are  told  by  Saint  Luke),ll  weep  not  for  him,  but  for 
themselves,  their  posterity,  and  their  country ;  and  who,  whilst  he 
was  suspended  upon  the  cross,  prayed  for  his  murderers,  ‘for  they 
know  not,’  said  he,  ‘  what  they  do.’  The  urgency  also  of  his  judges 
and  his  prosecutors  to  extort  from  him  a  defence  to  the  accusation, 
and  his  unwillingness  to  make  any  (which  was  a  peculiar  circum¬ 
stance),  appears  in  Saint  John’s  account,  as  well  as  in  that  of  the 
other  evangelists.ll 

There  are  moreover  two  other  correspondences  between  Saint 
John’s  history  of  the  transaction  and  theirs,  of  a  kind  somewhat  dif¬ 
ferent  from  those  which  we  have  been  now  mentioning. 


*  Chap,  xviii.  20,  21.  f  Mark  xiv.  48.  Luke  xxii.  52. 

t  Chap,  xviii.  34.  xix.  11.  §  Chap,  xviii.  23.  )|  Chap,  xxii i.  28. 

IT  Sec  John  xix.  9.  Matt,  xxvii.  14.  Luke  xxiii.  9. 

P  2 


174  Paley^s  View  of  the 

The  first  three  evangelists  record  what  is  called  our  Saviour’s 
agony,  i.  e.  his  devotion  in  the  garden  immediately  before  he  yvas 
apprehended ;  in  which  narrative  they  all  make  him  pray,  ‘  that 
the  cup  might  pass  from  him.’  This  is  the  particular  metaphor 
which  they  all  ascribe  to  him.  Saint  Matthew  adds,  ‘  O  my  Father, 
if  this  cup  may  not  pass  away  from  me,  except  I  drink  it,  thy  will 
be  done.’*  Now  Saint  John  does  not  give  the  scene  in  the  garden : 
but  when  Jesus  was  seized,  and  some  resistance  was  attempted  to 
be  made  by  Peter,  Jesus,  according  to  his  account,  checked  the  at¬ 
tempt  with  this  reply:  ‘Put  up  thy  sword  into  the  sheath:  the  cup 
which  my  Father  hath  given  me,  shall  I  not  drink  it  ?’t  This  is 
something  more  than  consistency ;  it  is  coincidence :  because  it  is 
extremelv  natural,  that  Jesus,  who,  before  he  w’as  apf^ehended, 
had  been  praying  his  Father,  that  ‘  that  cup  might  pass  from 
yet  with  such  a  pious  retraction  of  his  request,  as  to^  have  added, 

‘  If  this  cup  may  not  pass  from  me,  thy  will  be  done ;  it  was  natu¬ 
ral,  I  say,  for  the  same  person,  when  he  actually  was  apprehended, 
to  express  the  resignation  to  w'hich  he  had  already  made  up  his 
thoughts,  and  to  express  it  in  the  form  of  speech  which  he  had  be¬ 
fore  used,  ‘  The  cup  which  my  Father  hath  given  me,  shall  I  not 
drink  it?’  This  is  a  coincidence  between  writers,  in  whose  narra¬ 
tives  there  is  no  imitation,  but  great  diversity. 

A  second  similar  correspondency  is  the  following:  Matthew  and 
Mark  make  a  charge,  upon  which  our  Lord  was  condemned,  to  be 
a  threat  of  destroying  the  temple ;  ‘  We  heard  him  say,  I  will  destroy 
this  temple  made  with  hands,  and  within  three  days  I  will  build 
another  made  without  hands  :’t  but  they  neither  of  them  iiiiorm  us, 
upon  what  circumstances  this  calumny  was  founded.  Saint  John, 
in  the  early  part  of  the  history, §  supplies  us  with  this  information ; 
for  he  relates,  that,  on  our  Lord’s  first  journey  to  Jerusalem,  when 
the  Jews  asked  him,  ‘What  sign  showest  thou  unto  us,  seeing  that 
thou  doest  these  things  ?  he  answered.  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in 
three  days  I  will  raise  it  up.’  This  agreement  could  hardly  arise 
from  any  thing  but  the  truth  of  the  case.  From  any  care  or  design 
in  Saint  John,  to  make  his  narrative  tally  with  the  narratives  ot 
other  evangelists,  it  certainly  did  not  arise,  for  no  such  design  ap¬ 
pears,  but  the  absence  of  it.  •  i  n  • 

A  strong  and  more  general  instance  of  agreement  is  the  following. 

_ The  first  three  evangelists  have  related  the  appointment  of  the 

tw’elve  apostles,l|  and  have  given  a  catalogue  of  their  names  in  form. 
John,  without  ever  mentioning  the  appointment,  or  giving  the  cata¬ 
logue,  supposes,  throughout  his  whole  narrative,  Christ  to  be  accom¬ 
panied  by  a  select  party  of  his  disciples ;  the  number  of  those  to  be 
twelve  ;ir  and  whenever  he  happens  to  notice  any  one  of  that  num¬ 
ber,**  it  is  one  included  in  the  catalogue  of  the  other  evangelists : 


*  Chap.  xxvi.  42. 
§  Chap.  ii.  19. 

IT  Chap.  vi.  70. 


t  Chap,  xviii.  11.  t  Mark  xiv.  58. 

II  Matt.  X.  1.  Mark  iii.  14.  Luke  vi.  12. 

**  Chap.  XX.  24.  vi.  71. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  176 

and  the  names  principally  occurring  in  the  course  of  Ids  history  of 
Christ,  are  the  names  extant  in  their  list.  This  last  agreement,  which 
is  of  considerable  moment,  runs  through  every  Gfospel,  and  through 
every  chapter  of  each. 

All  this  bespeaks  reality. 


CHAP.  V. 

Originality  of  our  Saviour  s  Character. 

The  Jews,  whether  right  or  wrong,  had  understood  their  prophe¬ 
cies  to  foretell  the  advent  of  a  person,  who  by  some  supernatural 
assistance  should  advance  their  nation  to  independence,  and  to  a 
supreme  degree  of  splendor  and  prosperity.  This  was  the  reigning 
opinion  and  expectation  of  the  times. 

Now,  had  Jesus  been  an  enthusiast,  it  is  probable  that  his  enthu¬ 
siasm  would  have  fallen  in  with  the  popular  delusion,  and  that, 
whilst  he  gave  himself  out  to  be  the  person  intended  by  these  pre¬ 
dictions,  he  would  have  assumed  the  character  to  which  they  were 
universally  supposed  to  relate. 

Had  he  been  an  impostor,  it  was  his  business  to  have  flattered  the 
prevailing  hopes,  because  these  hopes  were  to  be  the  instruments 
of  his  attraction  and  success. 

But,  what  is  better  than  conjecture,  is  the  fact,  that  all  the  pre¬ 
tended  Messiahs  actually  did  so.  We  learn  from  Josephus,  that 
there  were  many  of  these.  Some  of  them,  it  is  probable,  might  be 
impostors,  who  thought  that  an  advantage  was  to  be  taken  of  the 
state  of  public  opinion.  Others,  perhaps,  were  enthusiasts,  whose 
imagination  had  been  drawn  to  this  particular  object,  by  the  lan¬ 
guage  and  sentiments  which  prevailed  around  them.  But,  whether 
impostors  or  enthusiasts,  they  concurred  in  producing  themselves  in 
the  character  which  their  countrymen  looked  for,  that  is  to  say,  as 
the  restorers  and  deliverers  of  the  nation,  in  that  sense  in  which 
restoration  and  deliverance  were  expected  by  the  Jews. 

Why  therefore  Jesus,  if  he  was,  like  them,  either  an  enthusiast  or 
impostor,  did  not  pursue  the  same  conduct  as  they  did,  in  framing 
his  character  and  pretensions,  it  will  be  found  difficult  to  explain. 
A  mission,  the  operation  and  benefit  of  which  was  to  take  place  in 
another  life,  was  a  thing  un  thought  of  as  the  subject  of  these  proph¬ 
ecies.  That  Jesus,  coming  to  them  as  their  Messiah,  should  come 
under  a  character  totally  different  from  that  in  which  they  expected 
him ;  should  deviate  from  the  general  persuasion,  and  deviate  into 
pretensions  absolutely  singular  and  original  ;  appears  to  be  incon¬ 
sistent  with  the  imputation  of  enthusiasm  or  imposture,  both  which, 
by  their  nature,  I  should  expect  would,  and  both  which,  throughout 
the  experience  which  this  very  subject  furnishes,  in  fact  have  fol¬ 
lowed  the  opinions  that  obtained  at  the  time. 

If  it  be  said,  that  Jesus,  having  tried  the  other  plan,  turned  at 


176 


Paleifs  View  of  the 

length  to  this ;  I  answer,  that  the  thing  is  said  without  evidence ; 
against  evidence ;  that  it  was  competent  to  the  rest  to  have  done  the 
same,  yet  that  nothing  of  this  sort  was  thought  of  by  any. 


CHAP.  VI. 

Conformity  of  the  facts  occasionally  mentioned  or  rf erred  to  in  Scrip 

ture,with  the  state  of  things  in  those  times  as  represented  by  foreign 

and  independent  accounts. 

One  argument,  which  has  been  much  relied  upon  (but  not  more 
than  its  just  weight  deserves),  is  the  conformity  of  the  facts  occa¬ 
sionally  mentioned  or  referred  to  in  Scripture,  with  the  state  of  things 
in  those  times,  as  represented  by  foreign  and  independent  accounts ; 
which  conform!^  proves,  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
possessed  a  species  of  local  knowledge,  which  could  only  belong  to 
an  inhabitant  of  that  country,  and  to  one  living  in  that  age.  This 
argument,  if  well  made  out  by  examples,  is  very  little  short  of 
proving  the  absolute  genuineness  of  the  writings.  It  carries  them 
up  to  the  age  of  the  reputed  authors,  to  an  age  in  which  it  must 
have  been  difficult  to  impose  upon  the  Christian  public,  forgeries  in 
the  names  of  those  authors,  and  in  which  there  is  no  evidence  that 
any  forgeries  w^ere  attempted.  It  proves,  at  least,  that  the  books, 
whoever  were  the  authors  of  them,  were  composed  by  persons  liv- 
ing  in  the  time  and  country  in  which  these  things  were  transacted ; 
and  consequently  capable,  by  their  situation,  of  being  well  informed 
of  the  facts  which  they  relate.  And  the  argument  is  stronger  when 
applied  to  the  New  Testament,  than  it  is  in  the  case  of  almost  any 
other  writings,  by  reason  of  the  mixed  nature  of  the  allusions  which 
this  book  contains.  The  scene  of  action  is  not  confined  to  a  single 
countiy,  but  displayed  in  the  greatest  cities  of  the  Roman  empire. 
Allusions  are  made  to  the  manners  and  principles  of  the  Greeks, 
the  Romans,  and  the  Jews.  This  variety  rend  ere  a  forgery  propor- 
tionably  more  difficult,  especially  to  writers  of  a  posterior  age.  A 
Greek  or  Roman  Christian,  who  lived  in  the  second  or  third  cen¬ 
tury,  would  have  been  wanting  in  Jewish  literature ;  a  Jewish  con¬ 
vert  in  those  ages  would  have  been  equally  deficient  in  the  know¬ 
ledge  of  Greece  and  Rome."'' 

This,  however,  is  an  argument  which  depends  entirely  upon  an 
induction  of  particulars;  and  as,  consequently,  it  carries  with  it  little 
force,  without  a  view  of  the  instances  upon  which  it  is  built,  I  have 
to  request  the  reader’s  attention  to  a  detail  of  examples,  distinctly 
and  articulately  proposed.  In  collecting  these  examples,  I  have  done 
no  more  than  epitomize  the  first  volume  of  the  first  part  of  Dr.  Lard- 
ner’s  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History.  And  I  have  brought  the 
argument  within  its  present  compass,  first,  by  passing  over  some  of 


*  Michaelis’s  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament  (Marsh’s  Transla¬ 
tion),  c.  2.  sect.  xi. 


177 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

his  sections  in  which  the  accordancy  appeared  to  me  less  certain,  or 
upon  subjects  not  sufficiently  appropriate  or  circumstantial ;  secondly, 
by  contracting  every  section  into  the  fewest  words  possible,  content¬ 
ing  myself  for  the  most  part  with  a  mere  apposition  of  passages ;  and, 
thirdly,  by  omitting  many  disquisitions,  which,  though  learned  and 
accurate,  are  not  absolutely  necessary  to  the  understanding  or  veri¬ 
fication  of  the  argument. 

The  writer  principally  made  use  of  in  the  inquiry,  is  Josephus. 
Josephus  was  born  at  Jerusalem  four  years  after  Christ’s  ascension. 
He  wrote  his  history  of  the  Jewish  war  some  time  after  the  destruc¬ 
tion  of  Jerusalem,  which  happened  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  lxx, 
that  is,  thirty-seven  years  after  the  ascension ;  and  his  histoiy  of  the 
Jews  he  finished  in  the  year  xciii,  that  is,  sixty  years  after  the 
ascension. 

At  the  head  of  each  article,  I  have  referred,  by  figures  included 
in  brackets,  to  the  page  of  Dr.  Lardner’s  volume,  where  the  section, 
from  which  the  abridgment  is  made,  begins.  The  edition  used,  is 
that  of  1741. 

I.  [p.  14.]  Matt.  ii.  22.  ‘When  he  (Joseph)  heard  that  Archelaus 
did  reign  in  Judea,  in  the  room  of  his  father  Herod,  he  was  afraid  to 
go  thither ;  notwithstanding,  being  warned  of  God  in  a  dream,  he 
turned  aside  into  the  parts  of  Galilee.’ 

In  this  passage  it  is  asserted,  that  Archelaus  succeeded  Herod  in 
Judea;  and  it  is  implied,  that  his  power  did  not  extend  to  Galilee. 
Now  we  learn  from  Josephus,  that  Herod  the  Great,  whose  dominion 
included  all  the  land  of  Israel,  appointed  Archelaus  his  successor  in 
Judea,  and  assigned  the  rest  of  his  dominions  to  other  sons ;  and  that 
this  disposition  was  ratified,  as  to  the  main  parts  of  it,  by  the  Roman 
emperor.* 

Saint  Matthew  says,  that  Archelaus  reigned,  was  Tting  in  Judea. 
Agreeably  to  this,  we  are  informed  by  Josephus,  not  only  that  Herod 
appointed  Archelaus  his  successor  in  Judea,  but  that  he  also  ap¬ 
pointed  him  with  the  title  of  King;  and  the  Greek  verb  Bao-ActJEi, 
which  the  evangelist  uses  to  denote  the  government  and  rank  of 
Archelaus,  is  used  likewise  by  Joseph us.t  i  • 

The  cruelty  of  Archelaus’s  character,  which  is  not  obscurely  inti¬ 
mated  by  the  evangelist,  agrees  with  divers  particulars  in  his  history, 
preserved  by  Josephus : — ‘  In  the  tenth  year  of  his  government,  the 
chief  of  the  Jews  and  Samaritans,  not  being  able  to  endure  his 
cruelty  and  tyranny,  presented  complaints  against  him  to  Ca;sar.’t 

H.  [p.  19.]  Luke  iii.  1.  ‘  In  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Tibe¬ 
rius  Caesar, — Herod  being  tetrarch  of  Galilee,  and  his  brother  Philip 
tetrarch  of  Iturea  and  of  the  region  of  Trachonitis, — the  word  of 
God  came  unto  John.’ 

By  the  will  of  Herod  the  Great,  and  the  decree  of  Augustus  there¬ 
upon,  his  two  sons  were  appointed,  one  (Herod  Antipas)  tetrarch  of 


*  Antiq.  lib.  xvii.  c.  8.  sect.  1. 

1  Antiq.  lib.  xvii.  c.  13.  sect.  1. 


t  De  Bell.  lib.  i.  c.  33.  sect.  7. 


178  Foley’s  View  of  the 

Galilee  and  Peraea,  and  the  other  (Philip)  tetrarch  of  Trachonitis  and 
the  neighboring  countries.^  We  have  therefore  these  two  persona 
in  the  situations  in  which  Saint  Luke  places  them ;  and  also,  that 
they  were  in  these  situations  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius ;  in 
other  words,  that  they  continued  in  possession  of  their  territories 
and  titles  until  that  time,  and  afterward,  appears  from  a  passage  in 
Josephus,  wdiich  relates  of  Herod,  ‘  that  he  was  removed  by  Caligula, 
the  successor  of  Ti  berius  ;t  and  of  Philip,  that  he  died  in  the  twen” 
iieth  year  of  Tiberius,  when  he  had  governed  Trachonitis  and  Bata- 
nea  and  Gaulanitis  thirty-seven  years.’! 

III.  [p.  20.]  Mark  vi.  17.$  ‘  Herod  had  sent  forth,  and  laid  hold 
upon  John,  and  bound  him  in  prison,  for  Herodias’  sake,  his  brother 
Philip’s  wife  ;  for  he  had  married  her.’ 

With  this  compare  Joseph.  Antiq.  1.  xviii.  6.  sect,  l.r — ‘He  (Herod 
the  tetrarch)  made  a  visit  to  Herod  his  brother. — Here,  falling  in 
love  with  Herodias,  the  wife  of  the  said  Herod,  he  ventured  to  make 
her  proposals  of  marriage.’ll 

Again,  Mark  vi.  22.  ‘  And  when  the  daughter  of  the  said  Herodias 
came  in  and  danced - .’ 

With  this  also  compare  Joseph.  Antiq.  1.  xviii.  c.  6.  sect.  4.  ‘Hero¬ 
dias  was  married  to  Herod,  son  of  Herod  the  Great.  They  had  a 
daughter,  whose  name  was  Salome ;  after  whose  birth,  Herodias,  in 
utter  violation  of  the  laws  of  her  country,  left  her  husband,  then 
living,  and  married  Herod  the  tetrarch  of  Galilee,  her  husband’s 
brother  by  the  father’s  side.’ 

IV.  [p.  29.]  Acts  xii.  1.  ‘  Now,  about  that  time,  Herod  the  king 
stretched  forth  his  hands  to  vex  certain  of  the  church.’  In  the  con¬ 
clusion  of  the  same  chapter,  Herod’s  death  is  represented  to 'have 
taken  place  soon  after  this  persecution.  The  accuracy  of  our  histo¬ 
rian,  or,  rather,  the  unmeditated  coincidence,  which  truth  of  its  own 
accord  produces,  is  in  this  instance  remarkable.  There  was  no  por¬ 
tion  of  time,  for  thirty  years  before,  nor  ever  afterward,  in  which 
there  was  a  king  at  Jerusalem,  a  person  exercising  that  authority  in 
Judea,  or  to  whom  that  title  could  be  applied,  except  the  three  last 
years  of  this  Herod’s  life,  within  which  period  the  transaction  re- 


*  Ant  lib.  xvii.  c.  8.  sect.  1.  t  Ibid-  hb.  xviii.  c.  8.  sect.  2. 

I  Ibid.  c.  5.  sect.  6.  §  See  also  Matt.  xiv.  1 — 13.  Luke  iii.  19. 

II  The 'affinity  of  the  two  accounts  is  unquestionable;  but  there  is  a 
difference  in  the  name  of  Herodias’s  first  husband,  which,  in  the  evan¬ 
gelist,  is  Philip;  in  Josephus,  Herod.  The  difficulty,  however,  will  not 
appear  considerable,  when  we  recollect  how  common  it  was  in  those 
times  for  the  same  person  to  bear  two  names.  ‘  Simon,  which  is  called 
Peter;  Lebbeus,  whose  surname  is  Thaddeus;  Thomas,  which  is  called 
Didymus;  Simeon,  who  was  called  Niger;  Saul,  who  was  also  called 
Paul.’  The  solution  is  rendered  likewise  easier  in  the  present  case,  by 
the  consideration,  that  Herod  the  Great  had  children  by  seven  or  eight 
wives;  that  Josephus  mentions  three  of  his  sons  under  the  name  of  Herod; 
that  it  is  nevertheless  highly  probable,  that  the  brothers  bore  some  addi¬ 
tional  name,  by  which  they  were  distinguished  from  one  another. — Lard- 
ner,  vol.  ii.  p.  897. 


179 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

corded  in  the  Acts  is  stated  to  have  taken  place.  This  prince  was 
the  grandson  of  Herod  the  Great,  In  the  Acts,  he  appears  under 
his  family -name  of  Herod ;  by  Josephus  he  was  called  Agrippa.  For 
proof  that  he  was  a  Tiiiig,  properly  so  called,  we  have  the  testimony 
of  Josephus  in  full  and  direct  terms : — ‘  Sending  for  hiiu  to  his  palace, 
Caligula  put  a  crown  upon  his  head,  and  appointed  him  king  of  the 
tetrarchie  of  Philip,  intending  also  to  give  him  the  tetrarchie  of  Ly- 
sanias.’*  And  that  Judea  was  at  last,  but  not  until  the  last,  included 
in  his  dominions,  appears  by  a  subsequent  passage  of  the  same  Jose¬ 
phus,  wherein  he  tells  us,  that  Claudius,  by  a  decree,  confirmed  to 
Agrippa  the  dominion  wJiich  Caligula  had  given  him ;  adding  aho 
Judia  and  Samaria,  in  the  utmost  extent,  as  possessed  hy  his  grand¬ 
father  Herod.f 

V.  [p.  32.]  Acts  xii.  19—23.  ‘  And  he  (Herod)  went  down  from 

Judea  to  Cesarea,  and  there  abode. — And  on  a  set  day,  Heiod, 
arrayed  in  royal  apparel,  sat  upon  his  throne,  and  rnade  an  oratmn 
unto  them :  and  the  people  gave  a  shout,  saying.  It  is  the  voice  of  a 
god,  and  not  of  a  man ;  and  immediately  the  angel  of  the  Lord  smote 
him,  because  he  gave  not  God  the  glory;  and  he  was  eaten  of  worms, 
and  gave  up  the  ghost.’  . 

Joseph.  Antiq.  lib.  xix.  c.  8.  sect.  2.  ‘He  went  to  the  city  of  Cesa^ 
rea.  Here  he  celebrated  shows  in  honor  of  Csesar.  On  the  second 
day  of  the  shows,  early  in  the  morning,  he  came  into  the  theatre, 
dressed  in  a  robe  of  silver,  of  most  curious  workmanship.  The  rays 
of  the  rising  sun,  reflected  from  such  a  splendid  garb,  gave  him  a 
majestic  and  awful  appearance.  They  called  hirn  a  god ;  and  en¬ 
treated  him  to  be  propitious  to  them,  saying,  Hitherto  we  have 
respected  you  as  a  man ;  but  now  w'e  acknowledge  you  to  be  more 
than  mortal.  The  king  neither  reproved  these  persons,  nor  rejected 
the  impious  flattery. — Immediately  after  this,  he  was  seized  with 
pains  in  his  bowels,  extremely  violent  at  the  very  first.  He  was 
carried  therefore  with  all  haste  to  his  palace.^  These  pains  con¬ 
tinually  tormenting  him,  he  expired  in  five  days’  time.’ 

The  reader  wall  perceive  the  accordancy  of  these  accounts  m 
various  particulars.  The  place  (Cesarea),  the  set  day,  the  gorgeous 
dress,  the  acclamations  of  the  assembly,  the  peculiar  turn  of  the 
flattery,  the  reception  of  it,  the  sudden  and  critical  incursion  of  the 
disease,  are  circumstances  noticed  in  both  narratives.  The  worms, 
mentioned  by  Saint  Luke,  are  not  remarked  by  Josephus;  but  the 
appearance  of  these  is  a  symptom,  not  unusually,  I  believe,  attending 
the  diseases  which  Josephus  describes,  viz.  violent  affections  of  the 

bow'els.  .  . 

VI.  [p.  41.]  Acts  xxiv.  24.  ‘And  after  certain  days,  whenle.ix 
came  with  his  wife  Drusilla,  which  was  a  Jewess,  he  sent  for  Paul. 

Joseph.  Antiq.  lib.  xx.  c.  6.  sect.  1,  2.  ‘Agrippa  gave  his  sis  ter 
Drusilla  in  marriage  to  Azizus,  king  of  the  Emesenes,  wfeen  he  had 
consented  to  be  circumcised. — But  this  marriage  of  Drusilla  w  ith 


*  Antiq  xviii.  c.  7.  sect.  10. 


t  Ib.  xix.  c  5.  sect.  I. 


180 


Paley’s  View  of  the 

Azizus  was  dissolved  in  a  short  time  after  this  manner: — When 
FeUx  was  procurator  of  Judea,  having  had  a  sight  of  her,  he  was  . 
mightily  taken  with  her. — She  was  induced  to  transgress  the  laws 
of  her  country,  and  marry  Felix.’ 

Here  the  public  station  of  Felix,  the  name  of  his  wife,  and  the 
singular  circumstance  of  her  religion,  all  appear  in  perfect  con¬ 
formity  with  the  evangelist. 

VII.  [p.  46.]  ‘  And  after  certain  days,  Idng  Agrippa  and  Bernice 
came  to  Cesarea  to  salute  Festus.’  By  this  passage  we  are  in  effect 
told,  that  Agrippa  was  a  king,  but  not  of  Judea;  for  he  came  to 
salute  Festus,  who  at  this  time  administered  the  government  of  that 
country  at  Cesarea. 

Now,  how  does  the  history  of  the  age  correspond  with  this  ac¬ 
count?  The  Agrippa  here  spoken  of,  was  the  son  of  Herod  Agrippa, 
mentioned  in  the  last  article ;  but  that  he  did  not  succeed  to  his 
father’s  kingdom,  nor  ever  recovered  Judea,  which  had  been  a  part 
of  it,  we  learn  by  the  information  of  Josephus,  w^ho  relates  of  him 
that,  when  his  father  w'as  dead,  Claudius  intended,  at  first,  to  have 
put  him  immediately  in  possession  of  his  father’s  dominions ;  but ' 
that,  Agrippa  being  then  but  seventeen  years  of  age,  the  emperor 
was  persuaded  to  alter  his  mind,  and  appointed  Cuspius  Fadus  pre¬ 
fect  of  Judea,  and  the  whole  kingdom;*  which  Fadus  was  suc¬ 
ceeded  by  Tiberius  Alexander,  Cumanus,  Felix,  Festus.t  But  that, 
tliough  disappointed  of  his  father’s  kingdom,  in  which  was  included 
Judea,  he  was  nevertheless  rightly  styled  King  Agrippa,  and  that , 
he  was  in  possession  of  considerable  territories  bordering  upon 
Judea,  we  gather  from  the  same  authority;  for,  after  several  suc¬ 
cessive  donations  of  country,  ^  Claudius,  at  the  same  time  that  he 
sent  Felix  to  be  procurator  of  Judea,  promoted  Agrippa  from  Chalcis 
to  a  greater  kingdom,  giving  to  him  the  tetrarchie  which  had  been 
Philip’s ;  and  he  added  moreover  the  kingdom  of  Lysanias,  and  the 
province  that  had  belonged  to  Varus.’]  ; 

Saint  Paul  addresses  this  person  as  a  Jew :  ‘  King  Agrippa,  be- 
lievest  thou  the  prophets  ?  I  know  that  thou  believest.’  As  the  son 
of  Herod  Agrippa,  who  is  described  by  Josephus  to  have  been  a 
zealous  Jew,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  maintained  the 
pme  profession.  But  what  is  more  material  to  remark,  because  it 
is  more  close  and  circumstantial,  is,  that  Saint  Luke,  speaking  of 
the  father,  (Acts  xii.  1 — 3.)  calls  him  Herod  the  king,  and  gives  an 
example  of  the  exercise  of  his  authority  at  Jerusalem:  speaking  of 
the  son,  (xxv.  13.)  he  calls  him  king,  but  not  of  Judea;  which  dis¬ 
tinction  agrees  correctly  with  the  history. 

VIII.  [p.  51.]  Acts  xiii.  6.  ‘  And  w’hen  they  had  gone  through  the 
isle  (Cyprus)  to  Paphos,  thej'’  tbund  a  certain  sorcerer,  a  false 
prophet,  a  Jew,  whose  name  was  Barjesus,  which  was  with  the 
deputy  of  the  country,  Sergius  Paulus,  a  prudent  man.’ 


*  Antiq.  xix.  c.  9.  ad  fin. 

J  De  Bell.  lib.  ii.  c.  12.  ad  fin. 


t  Ib.  XX.  De  Bell.  lib.  ii. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  181 

The  word,  which  is  here  translated  deputy,  signifies  'proconsul, 
md  upon  this  word  our  observation  is  founded.  The  provinces  of 
he  Roman  empire  were  of  two  kinds ;  those  belonging  to  the  era- 
jeror,  in  which  the  governor  was  called  propi-mtor ;  and  those  be- 
onging  to  the  senate,  in  which  the  governor  was  called  proconsul. 
4nd  this  was  a  regular  distinction.  Now  it  appears  from  Dio  Cas¬ 
sius,* * * §  that  the  province  of  Cyprus,  which  in  the  original  distribution 
was  assigned  to  the  emperor,  had  been  transferred  to  the  senate,  in 
exchange  for  some  others ;  and  that,  after  this  exchange,  the  ap¬ 
propriate  title  of  the  Roman  governor  was  proconsul. 

Ib.  xviii.  12.  [p.  55.]  ‘  And  when  Gallio  was  deputy  {proconsul)  of 
Achaia.’ 

The  propriety  of  the  title  ‘  proconsul,’  is  in  this  passage  still  more 
critical.  For  the  province  of  Achaia,  after  passing  from  the  senate 
to  the  emperor,  had  been  restored  again  by  the  emperor  Claudius  to 
the  senate  (and  consequently  its  government  had  become  proconsu¬ 
lar)  only  six  or  seven  years  before  the  time  in  which  this  transac¬ 
tion  is  said  to  have  taken  place.t  And  what  confines  with  strictness 
the  appellation  to  the  time  is,  that  Achaia  under  the  following 
reign  ceased  to  be  a  Roman  province  at  all. 

IX.  [p.  152.]  It  appears,  as  well  from  the  general  constitution  of  a 
Roman  province,  as  from  what  Josephus  delivers  concerning  the 
state  of  Judea  in  particular,]:  that  the  power  of  life  and  death 
resided  exclusively  in  the  Roman  governor;  but  that  the  Jews, 
nevertheless,  had  magistrates  and  a  council,  invested  with  a  sub¬ 
ordinate  and  municipal  authority.  This  economy  is  discerned  in 
every  part  of  the  Gospel  narrative  of  our  Saviour’s  crucifixion. 

X.  [p.  203.]  Acts  ix.  31.  ‘  Then  had  the  churches  rest  throughout 
all  Judea  and  Galilee  and  Samaria.’ 

This  rest  synchronizes  wath  the  attempt  of  Caligula  to  place  his 
statue  in  the  temple  of  Jerusalem ;  the  threat  of  which  outrage  pro¬ 
duced  amongst  the  Jews  a  consternation  that,  for  a  season,  diverted 
their  attention  from  every  other  object.^ 

XI.  [p.  218.]  Acts  xxi.  30.  ‘  And  they  took  Paul,  and  drew  him 
out  of  the  temple ;  and  forthwith  the  doors  W'ere  shut.  And  as 
they  went  about  to  kill  him,  tidings  came  to  the  chief  captain  of 
the  band,  that  all  Jerusalem  was  in  an  uproar.  Then  the  chief 
captain  came  near,  and  commanded  him  to  be  bound  with  two 
chains,  and  demanded,  who  he  was,  and  what  he  had  done  ;  and 
some  cried  one  thing,  and  some  another,  among  the  multitude : 
and,  when  he  could  not  know  the  certainty  for  the  tumult,  he  com¬ 
manded  him  to  be  carried  into  the  castle.  And  when  he  came  upon 
the  stairs,  so  it  was,  that  he  was  borne  of  the  soldiers  for  the  vio¬ 
lence  of  the  people.’ 

In  this  quotation,  we  have  the  band  of  Roman  soldiers  at  Jeru¬ 
salem,  their  office  (to  suppress  tumults),  the  castle,  the  stairs, 

*  De  Bell.  lib.  liv.  ad.  A.  U.  732. 

t  Suet,  in  Claud,  c.  25.  Dio,  lib.  Ixi. 

j  Antiq.  lib.  xx.  c.  8.  sect.  5.  c.  1.  sect.  2. 

§  Joseph,  de  Bell.  lib.  xi.  c.  13.  sect.  1.  3,  4. 


Q 


182 


Paley^s  View  of  the 


both,  as  it  should  seem,  adjoining  to  the  temple.  Let  us  mquire 
whether  we  can  find  these  particulars  in  any  other  record  ot  that 

^^Josephi’d^  Bell.  lib.  v.  c.  5.  sect.  8.  ‘  Antonia  was  situated  at  the 
angle  of  the  western  and  northern  porticoes  of  the  outer  temple.  It 
was  built  upon  a  rock  fifty  cubits  high,  steep  on  all  sides.— On  that 
side  where  it  joined  to  the  porticoes  of  the  temple,  there  were  stoirs 
reaching  to  each  portico,  by  which  the  gimrd  descended  ;  for  there 
was  always  lodged  here  a  Roman  legion,  and  posting  themselves  in 
their  armor  in  several  places  in  the  porticoes,  they  kept  a  watch  on 
the  people  on  the  feast-days  to  prevent  all  disorders;  for  as  the  tem¬ 
ple  was  a  guard  to  the  city,  so  was  Antonia  to  the  teinple. 

XII.  [p.  224.]  Acts  iv.  1.  ‘  And  as  they  spake  unto  the  people,  the 
priests,  and  the  captain  of  the  temple  and  the  Sadducees,  came  upon 
them  ’  Here  we  have  a  public  officer,  under  the  title  of  captain  ot 
the  temple,  and  he  probably  a  Jew,  as  he  accompanied  the  priests 
and  Sadducees  in  apprehending  the  apostles. 

Joseph,  de  Bell.  lib.  ii.  c.  17.  sect.  2.  ‘  And  at  the  temple,  Eleazar, 
the  son  of  Ananias,  the  high-priest,  a  young  man  of  a  bold  and  reso¬ 
lute  disposition,  then  captain,  persuaded  those  who  performed  the 
sacred  ministrations  not  to  receive  the  gift  or  sacrifice  from  any 

X*Iir.*^  [p.  225.]  Acts  XXV.  12.  ‘  Then  Festus,  when  he  had  con¬ 
ferred  with  the  council,  answered.  Hast  thou  appealed  unto  Cassar . 
unto  Csesar  shalt  thou  go.’  That  it  was  usual  for  the  Roman 
dents  to  have  a  council,  consisting  of  their  friends,  and  other  chief 
Romans  in  the  province,  appears  expressly  in  the  following  passage 
of  Cicero’s  oration  against  Verres ‘  Illud  negare  posses,  aut  nunc 
negabis,  te,  concilio  tuo  dimisso,  viris  primariis,  qui  in  consilio  C^. 
Sacerdotis  fuerant,  tibique  esse  volebant,  remotis,  de  re  judicata 

ju^icasse^.  Phihppi)  on  the  sabbath  we 

went  out  of  the  city  by  a  river-side,  w'here  prayer  was  wont  to  be 
made,’  or  where  a  Ttpoacv^rj,  oratory,  or  place  of  prayer,  was  allowed. 
The  particularity  to  be  remarked,  is  the  situation  of  the  place  where 
prayer  was  wont  to  be  made,  viz.  by  a  riverside. 

Philo,  describing  the  conduct  of  the  Jews  of  Alexandria,  on  a  cer¬ 
tain  public  occasion,  relates  of  them,  that  ‘  early  in  the  morning, 
flocking  out  of  the  gates  of  the  city,  they  go  to  the  neighboring 
shores  (for  the  npoaevxai  were  destroyed),  and,  standing  in  a  most 
pure  place,  they  lift  up  their  voices  with  one  accord.’* 

Josephus  gives  us  a  decree  of  the  city  of  Halicarnassus,  permit- 
ting  the  Jews  to  build  oratories;  a  part  of  which  decree  runs  thus; 

We  ordain  that  the  Jews  who  are  willing,  men  and  women,  do 
observe  the  sabbaths,  and  perform  sacred  rites  according  to  the 
Jewish  laws,  and  build  oratories  by  the  seaside-'i 

Tertullian,  among  other  Jewish  rites  and  customs,  such  as  feasts 


*  Philo  in  Place,  p.  382. 
j  Joseph.  Antiq.  lib.  xiv.  c.  10.  sect.  24. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  183 

sabbaths,  fasts,  and  unleavened  bread,  mentions  ‘  orationes  litorales;' 
that  is,  prayers  by  the  river-side.’* 

XV.  [p.  255.]  Acts  xxvi.  5.  ‘  After  the  most  straitest  sect  of  our 
religion,  I  lived  a  Pharisee.’ 

Joseph,  de  Bell.  lib.  i.  c.  5.  sect.  2.  ‘  The  Pharisees  were  reckoned 
the  most  religious  of  any  of  the  Jews,  and  to  be  the  most  exact  and 
skilful  in  explaining  the  laws.’ 

In  the  original,  there  is  an  agreement  not  only  in  the  sense,  but 
in  the  expression,  it  being  the  same  Greek  adjective,  which  is  ren¬ 
dered  ‘strait’  in  the  Acts,  and  ‘exact’  in  Josephus. 

XVI.  [p.  255.]  Mark  vii.  3,  4.  ‘  The  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jew’s, 
except  they  wash,  eat  not,  holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders ;  and 
many  other  things  there  be  which  they  have  received  to  hold.’ 

Joseph.  Antrq.  lib.  xiii.  c.  10.  sect.  6.  ‘  The  Pharisees  have  de¬ 
livered  to  the  people  many  institutions,  as  received  from  the  fathers, 
which  are  not  written  in  the  law  of  Moses.’ 

XVII.  [p.  259.]  Acts  xxiii.  8.  ‘For  the  Sadducees  say,  that  there 
is  no  resurrection,  neither  angel,  nor  spirit :  but  the  Pharisees  con¬ 
fess  both.’ 

Joseph,  de  Bell.  lib.  c.  8.  sect.  14.  ‘They  (the  Pharisees)  believe 
every  soul  to  be  immortal,  but  that  the  soul  of  the  good  only  passes 
into  another  body,  and  that  the  soul  of  the  wicked  is  punished  with 
eternal  punishment.’  On  the  other  hand,  (Antiq.  lib.  xviii.  c.  1. 
sect.  4.)  ‘  It  is  the  opinion  of  the  Sadducees,  that  souls  perish  with 
the  bodies.’ 

XVIII.  [p.  268.]  Acts  V.  17.  ‘  Then  the  high-priest  rose  up,  and 
all  they  that  were  with  him  (which  is  the  sect  of  the  Sadducees), 
and  were  filled  with  indignation.’  Saint  Luke  here  intimates,  that 
the  high-priest  was  a  Sadducee ;  which  is  a  character  one  w'ould 
not  have  expected  to  meet  with  in  that  station.  The  circumstance, 
remarkable  as  it  is,  was  not  however  without  examples. 

Joseph.  Antiq.  lib.  xiii.  c.  10.  sect.  6,  7.  ‘  John  Hyrcanus,  high- 
priest  of  the  Jews,  forsook  the  Pharisees  upon  a  disgust,  and  joined 
himself  to  the  party  of  the  Sadducees.’  This  high-priest  died  one 
hundred  and  seven  years  before  the  Christian  era. 

Again,  (Antiq.  lib.  xx.  c.  8.  sect.  1.)  ‘This  Ananus  the  younger, 
who,  as  we  have  said  just  now,  had  received  the  high-priesthood, 
was  fierce  and  haughty  in  his  behavior,  and,  above  all  men,  bold 
and  daring,  and,  moreover,  was  of  the  sect  of  the  Sadducees'  This 
high-priest  lived  little  more  than  twenty-years  after  the  transaction 
in  the  Acts. 

XIX.  [p.  282.]  Luke  ix.  51.  ‘And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  time 
was  come  that  he  should  be  received  up,  he  stedfastly  set  his  face 
to  go  to  Jerusalem,  and  sent  messengers  before  his  face.  And  they 
went,  and  entered  into  a  village  of  the  Samaritans,  to  make  ready 
for  him.  And  they  did  not  receive  him,  because  his  face  was  as 
though  he  would  go  to  Jerusalem.’ 

Joseph.  Antiq.  lib.  xx.  c.  5.  sect.  1.  ‘  It  was  the  custom  of  the 


♦  Tertull.  ad  Nat.  lib.  i.  c.  13. 


184  Paleifs  View  of  the 

Galileans,  who  went  up  to  the  holy  city  at  the  feasts,  to  travel 
through  the  country  of  Samaria.  As  they  were  in  their  journey, 
some  inhabitants  of  the  village  called  Ginaea,  which  lies  on  the 
borders  of  Samaria  and  the  great  plain,  falling  upon  them,  killed  a 
great  many  of  them.’ 

XX.  [p.  278.]  John  iv.  20.  ‘Our  fathers,’  said  the  Samaritan 
woman,  ‘worshipped  in  this  mountain;  and  ye  say,  that  Jerusalem 
is  the  place  where  men  ought  to  worship.’ 

Joseph.  Antiq.  lib.  xviii.  c.  6.  sect.  1.  ‘  Commanding  them  to  meet 
him  at  mount  Gerizim,  which  is  by  them  (the  Samaritans)  esteemed 
the  most  sacred  of  all  mountains.’ 

XXI.  [p.  812.]  Matt.  xxvi.  3.  ‘Then  assembled  together  the 
chief  priests,  and  the  elders  of  the  people,  unto  the  palace  of  the 
high-priest,  who  was  called  CaiaphasJ  That  Caiaphas  was  high- 
priest,  and  high-priest  throughout  the  presidentship  of  Pontius  Pi¬ 
late,  and  consequently  at  this  time,  appears  from  the  following  ac¬ 
count: — He  was  made  high-priest  by  Valerius  Grains,  predecessor 
of  Pontius  Pilate,  and  was  removed  from  his  office  by  Vitellius, 
president  of  Syria,  after  Pilate  was  sent  away  out  of  the  province 
of  Judea.  Josephus  relates  the  advancement  of  Caiaphas  to  the 
high-priesthood  in  this  manner :  ‘  Gratus  gave  the  high-priesthood 
to  Simon,  the  son  of  Camithus.  He  having  enjoyed  this  honor  not 
above  a  year,  was  succeeded  by  Joseph,  who  is  also  called  Caiaphas.* 
After  this,  Gratus  went  away  for  Rome,  having  been  eleven  years 
in  Judea;  and  Pontius  Pilate  came  thither  as  his  successor.’  Of  the 
removal  of  Caiaphas  from  his  office,  Josephus,  likewise,  afterward 
informs  us ;  and  connects  it  with  a  circumstance  which  fixes  the 
time  to  a  date  subsequent  to  the  determination  of  Pilate’s  govern¬ 
ment — ‘  Vitellius,’  he  tells  us,  ‘  ordered  Pilate  to  repair  to  Rome ; 
and  after  that,  went  up  himself  to  Jerusalem,  and  then  gave  direc¬ 
tions  concerning  several  matters.  And  having  done  these  things, 
he  took  away  the  priesthood  from  the  high-priest  Joseph,  who  is 
called  Caiaphas.’i 

XXII.  (Michaelis.  c.  xi.  sect.  11.)  Acts  xxiii.  4.  ‘  And  they  that 
stood  by,  said,  Revilest  thou  God’s  high-priest  ?  Then  said  Paul,  I 
wist  not,  brethren,  that  he  was  the  high-priest.’  Now,  upon  inquiry 
into  the  history  of  the  age,  it  turns  out,  that  Ananias,  of  whom  this 
is  spoken,  was,  in  truth,  not  the  high-priest,  though  he  was  sitting  in 
judgment  in  that  assumed  capacity.  The  case  was,  that  he  had 
formerly  holden  the  office,  and  had  been  deposed ;  that  the  person 
who  succeeded  him  had  been  murdered ;  that  another  was  not  yet 
appointed  to  the  station  ;  and  that,  during  the  vacancy,  he  had,  of 
his  own  authority,  taken  upon  himself  the  discharge  of  the  office.f 
This  singular  situabon  of  the  high-priesthood  took  place  during  the 
interval  between  the  death  of  Jonathan,  who  was  murdered  by 


*  Antiq.  lib.  xviii.  c.  2.  sect.  2. 
t  Ibid.  1.  xvii.  c.  5.  sect.  3. 
i  Ibid.  1.  XX.  c.  5.  sect.  2 ;  c.  9.  sect.  2. 


185 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

>rder  of  Felix,  and  the  accession  of  Ismael  who  was  invested  with 
;he  high-priesthood  by  Agrippa ;  and  precisely  in  this  interval  it 
happened  that  Saint  Paul  was  apprehended,  and  brought  before 
.he  Jewish  council. 

XXIII.  [p.  323.]  Matt.  xxvi.  59.  ‘Now  the  chief  priests  and 
slders,  and  all  the  council,  sought  false  witness  against  him.’ 

Joseph.  Aatiq.  lib.  xviii.  c.  15.  sect.  3,  4.  ‘  Then  might  be  seen 

ihe  high-priests  themselves,  with  ashes  on  their  heads,  and  their 
breasts  naked.’ 

The  agreement  here  consists  in  speaking  of  the  high-priests  or 
chief  priests  (for  the  name  in  the  original  is  the  same)  in  the  plural 
number,  when,  in  strictness,  there  was  only  one  high-priest :  which 
may  be  considered  as  a  proof,  that  the  evangelists  were  habituated 
to  the  manner  of  speaking  then  in  use,  because  they  retain  it  when 
it  is  neither  accurate  nor  just.  For  the  sake  of  brevity,  I  have  put 
iowm,  from  Josephus,  only  a  single  example  of  the  application  of 
this  title  in  the  plural  number ;  but  it  is  his  usual  style. 

Ib.  [p.  871.]  Luke  iii.  1.  ‘  Now’  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign 

of  Tiberius  Caesar,  Pontius  Pilate  being  governor  of  J udea,  and 
Hei-od  being  tetrarch  of  Galilee,  Annas  and  Caiaphas  being  the  high- 
priests,  the  word  of  God  came  unto  John.’  There  is  a  passage  in 
Josephus  very  nearly  paimllel  to  this,  and  which  may  at  least  serve 
to  vindicate  the  evangelists  from  objection,  with  respect  to  his  giv¬ 
ing  the  title  of  high-priest  specificallv  to  two  persons  at  the  same 
lime  :  ‘  Quadratus  sent  two  others  of  the  most  powerful  men  of  the 
Jews,  as  also  the  high-priesls  Jonathan  and  Ananias.'*  That  Annas 
was  a  person  in  an  eminent  station,  and  possessed  an  authority  co- 
ordijiate  with,  or  next  to,  that  of  the  high-priest  properly  so  called, 
may  be  inferred  from  Saint  John’s  Gospel,  which,  in  the  history  of 
Clirisi’s  crucifixion,  relates  that  ‘  the  soldiers  led  him  away  to  Annas 
first.’t  And  this  might  be  noticed  as  an  example  of  undesigned 
coincidence  in  the  two  evangelists. 

Again,  [p.  870.]  Acts  iv.  6.  Annas  is  called  the  high-priest, 
though  Caiaphas  w  as  in  the  office  of  the  high-priesthood.  In  like 
manner,  in  Josephus,];  Joseph  the  son  of  Goi’ion,  and  the  high-priest 
Ananus,  were  chosen  to  be  supreme  governors  of  all  things  in  the 
city.’  Yet  Ananus,  though  here  called  the  high-priest  Ananus,  was 
not  then  in  the  office  of  the  high  priesthood.  The  truth  is,  there  is 
an  indeterminateness  in  the  use  of  this  title  in  the  Gospel :  some¬ 
times  it  is  applied  exclusively  to  the  person  who  held  the  office  at 
the  time  ;  sometimes  to  one  or  two  more,  who  probably  shared  with 
him  some  of  the  powers  or  functions  of  the  office ;  and,  sometimes, 
to  such  of  the  priests  as  w  ere  eminent  by  their  station  or  character  ;§ 
and  there  is  the  very  same  indeterminateness  in  Josephus. 

XXIV.  [p.  347.]  John  xix.  19,  20.  ‘And  Pilate  wrote  a  title,  and 
put  it  on  the  cross.  That  such  was  the  custom  of  the  Romans  on 
these  occasions,  appears  from  passages  of  Suetonius  and  Dio  Cas- 


]■  xviii.  13. 

5  Mark  xiv,  53. 
Q2 


*  De  Bell.  lib.  ix.  c.  12.  sect.  6. 
J  Lib.  ii.  c.  20.  sect.  3. 


28 


186  Paleifs  View  of  the 

sius:  ‘Patrem  familias — canibus  objecit,  cum  hoc  titulo,  Impielocu- 
m?  parmularius.’  Suet.  Domit.  cap.  x.  And  in  Dio  Cassius  we 
ha\e  the  following:  ‘.Having  led  him  through  the  midst  of  the 
court  or  assembly,  with  a  writing  signifying  the  cause  of  his  death, 
and  afterward  crucifying  him.’  Book  liv. 

Ib.  ‘  And  it  was  written  in  Hebrew,  Greek,  and  Latin.’  That 
it  was  also  usual  about  this  time,  in  Jerusalem,  to  set  up  advertise¬ 
ments  in  different  languages,  is  gathered  from  the  account  which 
Josephus  gives  of  an  expostulatory  message  from  Titus  to  the  Jews, 
when  the  city  was  almost  in  his-  hands ;  in  which  he  says.  Did  ye 
not  erect  pillars  with  inscriptions  on  them,  in  the  Greek  and  in  our 
language,  ‘  Let  no  one  pass  beyond  these  bounds.’ 

XxV.  [p.  352.]  Matt,  xxvii.  26.  ‘When  he  had  scourged  Jesus,  he 
delivered  him  to  be  crucified.’ 

The  following  passages  occur  in  Josephus : 

‘  Being  beaten,  they  were  crucified  opposite  to  the  citadel.’* 
‘Whom,  \iSL\xngjirst  scourged  with  whips,  he  crucified.’t 
‘  He  was  burnt  alive,  having  been  first  beaten'X 
To  which  may  be  added  one  from  Livy,  lib.  xi.  c.  5.  ‘  Productique 
omnes,  virgisque  ccesi,  ac  securi  percussi.’ 

A  modern  example  may  illustrate  the  use  we  make  of  this  in¬ 
stance.  The  preceding,  of  a  capital  execution  by  the  corporal  pun 
ishment  of  the  sufferer,  is  a  practice  unknown  in  England,  bu 
retained,  in  some  instances  at  least,  as  appears  by  the  late  executior 
of  a  regicide,  in  Sweden.  This  circumstance,  therefore,  in  the 
account  of  an  English  execution,  purporting  to  come  from  an  Eng 
lish  writer,  would  not  only  bring  a  suspicion  upon  the  truth  of  tin 
account,  but  would,  in  a  considerable  degree,  impeach  its  preten 
sions  of  having  been  written  by  the  author  whose  name  it  bore 
Whereas  the  same  circumstance,  in  the  account  of  a  Swedish  exe 
cution,  would  verify  the  account,  and  support  the  authenticity  of  th< 
book  in  which  it  w'as  found ;  or,  at  least,  w'ould  prove  that  the  au 
thor,  whoever  he  was,  possessed  the  information  and  the  knowledgt 
which  he  ought  to  possess. 

XXVI.  [p.  353.]  John  xix.  16.  ‘  And  they  took  Jesus,  and  led  hin 
away ;  and  he,  bearing  his  cross,  went  forth,’ 

Plutarch,  De  iis  qui  sero  puniuntur.  p.  554 :  a  Paris,  1624.  ‘  Ever 
kind  of  wickedness  produces  its  own  particular  torment,  just  a 
every  malefactor,  when  he  is  brought  forth  to  execution  carries  hi 
own  cross.’ 

XXVII.  John  xix.  32.  ‘  Then  came  the  soldiers,  and  brake  the  leg 
of  the  first,  and  of  the  other  which  was  crucified  with  him.’ 

Constantine  abolished  the  punishment  of  the  cross ;  in  commenc 
ing  which  edict,  a  heathen  writer  notices  this  very  circumstance  o 
breaking  the  legs:  ‘E6  pius,  ut  etiam  vetus  yeterrimumque  suppl 
cium,  patibulum,  et  cruribus  suffringendis,  primus  reraoverit.’  Au 
Viet.  Ces.  cap.  xli. 


*  P.  1247,  edit.  24.  Huds 
t  P.  1327,  edit.  43. 


t  P.  1080,  edit.  45. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  187 

XXVIII.  [p.  457.]  Acts  iii.  1.  ‘Now  Peter  and  John  went  up  to¬ 
gether  into  the  temple,  at  the  hour  of  prayer,  being  the  ninth  hour.’ 

Joseph.  Antiq.  lib.  xv.  c.  7.  sect.  8.  ‘  Twice  every  day,  in  the  morn¬ 
ing  and  at  the  ninth  hour,  the  priests  perform  their  duty  at  the  altar.’ 

XXIX.  [p.  462.]  Acts  XV.  21.  ‘  For  Moses,  of  old  time,  hath,  in 
every  city,  them  that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the  synagogues  every 
sabbath-day.' 

Joseph,  contra  Ap.  1.  ii.  ‘  He  (Moses)  gave  us  the  law ;  the  most 
excellent  of  all  institutions ;  nor  did  he  appoint  that  it  should  be 
heard  once  only,  or  twice,  or  often,  but  that  laying  aside  all  other 
works,  we  should  meet  together  every  week  to  hear  it  read,  and  gain 
a  perfect  understanding  of  it.’ 

XXX.  [p.  465.]  Acts  xxi.  23.  ‘We  have  four  men,  which  have  a 
vow  on  them ;  them  take,  and  purify  thyself  with  them,  that  they 
may  shave  their  heads' 

Joseph,  de  Bell.  1.  xi.  c.  15.  ‘  It  is  customary  for  those  who  have 
been  afflicted  with  some  distemper,  or  have  labored  under  any  other 
difficulties,  to  make  a  vow  thirty  days  before  they  offer  sacrifices,  to 
abstain  from  wine,  and  shave  the  hair  of  their  heads' 

Ib.  V.  24.  ‘  Them  take,  and  purify  thyself  with  them,  and  be  at 
charges  ivith  them,  that  they  may  shave  their  heads.' 

Joseph.  Antiq.  1.  xix.  c.  6.  ‘He  (Herod  Agrippa)  coming  to  Jerusa¬ 
lem,  offered  up  sacrifices  of  thanksgiving,  and  omitted  nothing  that 
was  prescribed  by  the  law.  For  wdiich  reason  he  also  ordered  a  good 
number  of  Nazarites  to  be  shaved.'  We  here  find  that  it  w’as  an  act 
of  piety  amongst  the  Jews,  to  defray  for  those  w’ho  were  under  the 
Nazarite  vow  the  expenses  which  attended  its  completion ;  and  that 
the  phrase  was,  ‘  that  they  might  be  shaved.’  The  custom  and  the 
expression  are  both  remarkable,  and  both  in  close  conformity  with 
the  Scripture  account. 

XXXI.  [p.  474.]  2  Cor.  xi.  24.  ‘Of  the  Jews  five  times  received  I 
forty  stripes,  save  one.' 

Joseph.  Antiq.  iv.  c.  8.  sect.  21.  ‘  He  that  acts  contrary  hereto,  let 
him  receive  forty  stripes,  wanting  one,  from  the  public  officer.’ 

The  coincidence  here  is  singular,  because  the  law  allowed  forty 
stripes: — ‘Forty  stripes  he  may  give  him,  arid  not  exceed.’  Deut. 
XXV.  3.  It  proves  that  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
was  guided,  not  by  books,  but  by  facts ;  because  his  statement  agrees 
with  the  actual  custom,  even  when  that  custom  deviated  from  the 
written  law,  and  from  what  he  must  have  learnt  by  consulting  the 
Jewish  code,  as  set  forth  in  the  Old  Testament. 

XXXII.  [p.  490.]  Luke  iii.  12.  ‘  Then  came  also  publicans  to  be 
baptized.’  From  this  quotation,  as  well  as  from  the  histo^  of  Levi 
or  Matthew  (Luke  v.  29.)  and  of  Zaccheus,  (Luke  xix.  2.)  it  appears, 
that  the  publicans  or  tax-gatherers  were,  frequently,  at  least,  if  not 
always,  Jew's :  which,  as  the  country  was  then  under  a  Roman  gov¬ 
ernment,  and  the  taxes  were  paid  to  the  Romans,  was  a  circum¬ 
stance  not  to  be  expected.  That  it  was  the  truth  however  of  the 
case,  appears,  from  a  short  passage  of  Josephus. 

De  Bell.  lib.  li.  c.  14.  sect.  45.  ‘But,  Florus  not  restraining  these 


188 


Paley's  View  of  the 

practices  by  his  authority,  the  chief  men  of  the  Jews,  among  whom 
was  John  the  publican,  not  knowing  well  what  course  to  take,  wait 
upon  Florus,  and  give  him  eight  talents  of  silver  to  stop  the  building.’ 

XXXIII.  [p.  496.]  Acts  xxii.  25.  ‘  And  as  they  bound  him  with 
thongs,  Paul  said  unto  the  centurion  that  stood  by,  Is  it  lawful  for 
you  to  scourge  a  man  that  is  a  Roman,  and  uncondemned  ?  ’ 

‘  Facinus  est  vinciri  civera  Romanum ;  scelus  verberari.’  Cic.  in 
Verr. 

‘  Csedebatur  virgis,  in  medio  foro  Messanas,  civis  Romanus,  Judi-  ■ 
ces :  cum  interea  nullus  gemitus,  nulla  vox  alia,  istius  miseri  inter 
dolorem  crepitumque  plagarum  audiebatur,  nisi  haac,  Civis  Romanus 
sum' 

XXXIV.  [p.  513.]  Acts  xxii.  27.  ‘Then  the  chief  captain  came, 
and  said  unto  him  (Paul),  Tell  me,  art  thou  a  Roman  ?  He  said,  Yea.’ 
The  circumstance  here  to  be  noticed  is,  that  a  Jew  was  a  Roman 
citizen. 

Joseph.  Antiq.  lib.  xiv.  c.  10.  sect.  13.  ‘  Lucius  Lentulus,  the  consul 
declared,  I  have  dismissed  from  the  service  the  Jewish  Roman  citi 
zens,  who  observe  the  rites  of  the  Jewish  religion  at  Ephesus.’ 

Ib.  V.  28.  ‘  And  the  chief  captain  answered,  With  a  great  sum 
obtained  I  this  freedom' 

Dio  Cassius,  lib.  lx.  ‘  This  privilege,  which  had  been  bought  for¬ 
merly  at  a  great  price,  became  so  cheap,  that  it  was  commonly  said, 
a  man  might  be  made  a  Roman  citizen  for  a  few  pieces  of  broken 
glass.’ 

XXXV.  [p.  521.]  Acts  xxviii.  16.  ‘And  when  we  came  to  Rome, 
the  centurion  delivered  the  prisoners  to  the  captain  of  the  guard ; 
but  Paul  w'as  suffered  to  dwell  by  himself,  with  a  soldier  that  hept 
him.' 

With  which  join  ver.  20.  ‘  For  the  hope  of  Israel,  I  am  bound 
with  this  chain.' 

‘  Quemadmodiim  eadem  catena  et  custodiam  et  militem  copulat;  sic 
ista,  quEe  tarn  dissimilia  sunt,  pariter  incedunt.’  Seneca,  Ep.  v. 

‘  Proconsul  sestimare  solet,  utrum  in  carcerem  recipienda  sit  per¬ 
sona,  an  militi  tradenda.'  Ulpian,  1.  i.  sect.  De  Custod.  et  Exhib. 
Reor. 

In  the  confinement  of  Agrippa  by  the  order  of  Tiberius,  Antonia 
managed,  that  the  centurion  who  presided  over  the  guards,  and  the 
soldier  to  whom  Agrippa  was  to  he  bound,  might  be  men  of  mild  char¬ 
acter.  (Joseph.  Antiq.  lib.  xviii.  c.  7.  sect.  5.)  After  the  accession  of 
Caligula,  Agrippa  also,  like  Paul,  was  suffered  to  dwell,  yet  as  a 
prisoner,  in  his  own  house. 

XXXVI.  [p.  531.]  Acts  xxvii.  1.  ‘  And  when  it  was  determined 
that  we  should  sail  into  Italy,  they  delivered  Paul,  and  certain  other 
prisoners,  unto  one  named  Julius.’  Since  not  only  Paul  but  certain 
other  prisoners  were  sent  by  the  same  ship  into  Italy,  the  text  must 
be  considered  as  carrying  with  it  an  intimation,  that  the  sending  of 
persf)ns  from  Judea  to  be  tried  at  Rome,  was  an  ordinary  practice. 
That  in  truth  it  was  so,  is  made  out  by  a  variety  of  examples  which 
the  writings  of  Josephus  furnish ;  and,  amongst  others,  by  the  fol 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  189 

owing,  which  comes  near  both  to  the  time  and  the  subject  of  the 
nstance  in  the  Acts.  ‘  Felix,  for  some  slight  offence,  hound  and  sent 
0  Rome  several  priests  of  his  acquaintance,  and  very  good  and 
lonest  men,  to  answer  for  themselves  to  Caesar.’  Joseph,  in  Vit. 
ect.  3. 

XXXVII.  [p.  539.]  Acts  xi.  27.  ‘  And  in  these  days  came  prophets 
i-om  Jerusalem  unto  Antioch ;  and  there  stood  up  one  of  them 
lamed  Agabus,  and  signified  by  the  Spirit  that  there  should  be  a 
[reat  dearth  throughout  all  the  world  (or  all  the  country) ;  which 
■ame  to  pass  in  the  days  of  Claudius  Ccesar.’ 

Joseph.  Antiq.  1.  xx.  c.  4.  sect.  2.  ‘  In  their  time  (i.  e.  about  the 
ifth  or  sixth  year  of  Claudius)  a  great  dearth  happened  in  Judea.’ 

XXXVIII.  [p.  555.]  Acts  xviii.  1,  2.  ‘Because  that  Claudius  had 
lommanded  all  Jews  to  depart  from  Rome.’ 

Suet.  Claud,  c.  xxv.  ‘  Judasos,  impulsore  Chresto  assidue  tumul- 
uantes,  Roma  expuht.’ 

XXXIX.  [p.  664.]  Acts  v.  37.  ‘After  this  man,  rose  up  Judas  of 
Jalilee,  in  the  days  of  the  taxing,  and  drew  away  much  people  after 
lim.’ 

Joseph,  de  Bell.  1.  vii.  ‘  He  (viz.  the  person  who  in  another  place 
s  called,  by  Josephus,  Judas  the  Galilean  or  Judas  of  Galilee)  per¬ 
suaded  not  a  few  not  to  enrol  themselves,  when  Cyrenius  the  Cen¬ 
sor  was  sent  into  Judea.’ 

XL.  [p.  942.]  Acts  xxi.  38.  ‘  Art  not  thou  that  Egyptian  which, 
jefore  these  days,  madest  an  uproar,  and  leddest  out  into  the  wil- 
lerness  four  thousand  men  that  were  murderers  ?’ 

Joseph,  de  Bell.  1.  ii.  c.  13.  sect.  5.  ‘But  the  Egyptian  false 
prophet  brought  a  yet  heavier  disaster  upon  the  Jews;  for  this  im- 
xsstor,  coming  into  the  country,  and  gaining  the  reputation  of  a 
jrophet,  gathered  together  thirty  thousand  men,  w'ho  were  deceived 
ty  him.  Having  brought  them  round  out  of  the  wilderness,  up  to 
he  mount  of  Olives,  he  intended  from  thence  to  make  his  attack 
ipon  Jerusalem;  but  Felix,  coming  suddenly  upon  him  with  the 
Roman  soldiers,  prevented  the  attack.’ — A  great  number,  (or  as  it 
should  rather  be  rendered)  the  greatest  part  of  those  that  were  with 
lim,  were  either  slain  or  taken  prisoners. 

In  these  two  passages,  the  designation  of  this  impostor,  an  ‘  Egyp- 
ian,’  without  the  proper  name ;  ‘  the  wilderness ;’  his  escape, 
hough  his  followers  were  destroyed  ;  the  time  of  the  transaction, 
n  the  presidentship  of  Felix,  which  could  not  be  any  long  time  be- 
bre  the  words  in  Luke  are  supposed  to  have  been  spoken ;  are  cir- 
mmstances  of  close  correspondency.  There  is  one,  and  only  one, 
wint  of  disagreement,  and  that  is,  in  the  number  of  his  followers, 
vhich  in  the  Acts  are  called  four  thousand,  and  by  Josephus  thirty 
housand :  but,  beside  that  the  names  of  numbers,  more  than  any 
)ther  words,  are  liable  to  the  errors  of  transcribers,  we  are,  in  the 
iresent  instance,  under  the  less  concern  to  reconcile  the  evangelist 
vith  Josephus,  as  Josephus  is  not,  in  this  point,  consistent  withhim- 
elf.  For  whereas,  in  the  passages  here  quoted,  he  calls  the  number 
hirty  thousand,  and  tells  us  that  the  greatest  part,  or  a  great  num- 


190  Paley^s  View  of  the 

ber  (according  as  his  words  are  rendered),  of  those  that  were  with 
him,  were  destroyed ;  in  his  Antiquities,  lie  represents  four  hundred 
to  have  been  killed  upon  this  occasion,  and  two  hundred  taken 
prisoners  :*  w’hich  certainly  was  not  the  ‘  greatest  part,’  nor  ‘  a  great 
part,’  nor  ‘  a  great  number,’  out  of  thirty  thousand.  It  is  probable 
also,  that  Lysias  and  Josephus  spoke  of  the  expedition  in  its  different 
stages:  Lysias,  of  those  who  followed  the  Egyptian  out  of  Jerusa¬ 
lem  :  Josephus,  of  all  who  were  collected  about  him  afterward, 
from  different  quarters. 

XLI.  (Lardner’s  Jewish  and  Heathen  Testimonies,  vql.  iii.  p.  21.) 
Acts  xvii.  22.  ‘  Then  Paul  stood  in  the  midst  of  Mars-hill,  and  said. 
Ye  men  of  Athens,  I  perceive  that  in  all  things  ye  are  too  supersti¬ 
tious  ;  for  as  I  passed  by  and  beheld  your  devotions,  I  found  an  altar 
with  this  inscription,  TO  THE  UNKNOWN  GOD.  Whom  there¬ 
fore  ye  ignorantly  worship,  him  declare  I  unto  you.’ 

Diogenes  Laertius,  who  wrote  about  the  year  210,  in  the  history 
of  Epimenides,  who  is  supposed  to  have  flourished  nearly  six  hun¬ 
dred  years  before  Christ,  relates  of  him  the  following  story :  that, 
being  invited  to  Athens  for  the  purpose,  he  delivered  the  city  from 
a  pestilence  in  this  manner; — ‘Taking  several  sheep,  some  black, 
others  white,  he  had  them  up  to  the  Areopagus,  and  then  let  them 
go  where  they  would,  and  gave  orders  to  those  who  followed  them, 
wherever  any  of  them  should  lie  down,  to  sacrifice  it  to  the  god  to 
whom  it  belonged ;  and  so  the  plague  ceased. — -Hence,’  says  the 
historian,  it  has  come  to  pass,  that  to  this  present  time,  may  he  found 
in  the  boroughs  of  the  Athenians  anonymous  altars ;  a  memorial  of 
the  expiation  then  made.’t  These  altars,  it  may  be  presumed,  w^ere 
called  anonymous,  because  there  was  not  the  name  of  any  particu¬ 
lar  deity  inscribed  upon  them. 

Pausanius,  who  wrote  before  the  end  of  the  second  century,  in 
his  description  of  Athens,  having  mentioned  an  altar  of  Jupiter 
Olympius,  adds,  ‘  And  nigh  unto  it  is  an  altar  of  unknown  gods.'^ 
And  in  another  place  he  speaks  ‘  of  altars  of  gods  called  unknown.''^ 

Philostratus,  who  wrote  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  re¬ 
cords  it  as  an  observation  of  Apollonius  Tyanseus,  ‘  That  it  was  wise 
to  speak  well  of  all  the  gods,  especially  at  Athens,  where  altars  of 
unknown  demons  were  erected.’W 

The  author  of  the  dialogue  Philopatris,  by  many  supposed  to  have 
been  Lucian,  who  wrote  about  the  year  170,  by  others  some  anony¬ 
mous  Heathen  writer  of  the  fourth  century,  makes  Critids  swear  by 
the  unknown  god  of  Athens  ;  and,  near  the  end  of  the  dialogue,  has 
these  words,  ‘  But  let  us  find  out  the  unknown  god  of  Athens,  and 
stretching  our  hands  to  heaven,  offer  to  him  our  praises  and  thanks- 
givings.’H  _  . 

This  is  a  very  curious  and  a  very  important  coincidence.  It  ap- 


*  Lib.  20.  c.  7.  sect.  6.  t  In  Epiinenide,  1.  i.  segm.  110. 

t  Pans.  1.  V.  p  412.  §  Paus.  1.  i.  p.  4. 

II  Philos.  Apoll.  Tyan.  1.  vi.  c.  3. 

II  Lucian,  in  Philop.  tom.  ii.Grsev.  p.  767.  780. 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 


m 


nears  beyond  controversy,  that  altars  with  this  inscription  were  ex- 
istinff  at  Athens,  at  the  time  when  Saint  Paul  is  alleged  to  have 
been  there.  It  seems  also  (which  is  very  worthy  of  ^servation), 
that  this  inscription  was  peculiar  to  the  Athenians.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  there  were  altars  inscribed  ‘  to  the  unknown  god  m 
any  other  country.  Supposing  the  history  of  Saint  Paul  to  l^v® 
a  fable,  how  is  it  possible  that  such  a  writer  as  the  author  ol  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  was,  should  hit  upon  a  circumstance  so  e^raordmary, 
and  introduce  it  by  an  allusion  so  suitable  to  Saint  Paul  s  office 
and  character  ? 

The  examples  here  collected  will  be  sufficient,  I  hope,  to  satisfy 
us,  that  the  writers  of  the  Christian  history  knew  something  of  what 
they  were  writing  about.  The  argument  is  also  strengthened  by 

the  following  considerations : —  r 

I.  That  these  agreements  appear,  not  only  in  articles  ot  public 
history,  but  sometimes,  in  minute,  recondite,  and  very  peculiar  cir¬ 
cumstances,  in  which,  of  all  others,  a  forger  is  most  hkely  to  have 

been  found  tripping.  ,  •  ,  ^  i  i  c  ..u. 

II.  That  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  took  place  forty 
years  after  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  institution,  produced 
such  a  change  in  the  state  of  the  couiitry,  and  the  condition  of  the 
Jews,  that  a  writer  who  was  unacquainted  ynth  the  circumstances 
of  the  nation  before  that  event,  would  find  it  difficult  to  avoid  mis¬ 
takes,  in  endeavoring  to  give  detailed  accounts  of  transactions  con¬ 
nected  with  those  circumstances,  forasmuch  as  he  could  no  longer 

have  a  living  exemplar  to  copy  from.  „  ,  m  ^  * 

III.  That  there  appears,  in  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  a 
knowledge  of  the  affairs  of  those  times,  which  we  do  not  find  in 
authors  of  later  ages.  In  particular,  ‘  many  of 

of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  and  of  the  following  aps,  had 
false  notions  concerning  the  state  of  Judea,  between  the  nativity  of 
Jesus  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.’*  Therefore  they  could  not 
have  composed  our  histories. 

Amidst^  many  conformities,  we  are  not  to  wonder  that  we  me^ 
with  some  difficulties.  The  principal  of  these  I  will  ^n  ^ 
gether  with  the  solutions  which  they  have  received.  Bat  in  dmng 
this,  I  must  be  contented  with  a  brevity  better  suited  to  the  hmits 
of  my  volume  than  to  the  nature  of  a  controversial  argument,  for 
the  historical  proofs  of  my  assertions,  and  for  the  Greek  criticisms 
upon  which  some  of  them  are  founded,  I  refer  the  reader  to  the 
second  volume  of  the  first  part  of  Dr.  Lardner  s  large  work.  ^ 

I.  The  taxing  during  which  Jesus  was  bom,  was  first  raai^,  as 
we  read,  according  to  our  translation,  m  Saint  Luke,  ‘  whust  Gyre- 
nius  was  governor  of  Syria.’t  Now  it  turns  out  that  Cyrenius  was 
not  governor  of  Syria  until  twelve,  or,  at  the  soonest,  ten  years  after 
the  birth  of  Christ ;  and  that  a  taxing,  census,  or  assessment,  was 


*  Lardner,  part  i.  vol.  ii.  p.  960. 


t  Chap.  ii.  ver.  2. 


192 


Paley's  View  of  the 

made  in  Jud6a  in  the  beginning  of  his  government.  The  charge 
therefore,  brought  against  the  evangelist  is,  that,  intending  to  refer 
to  this  taxing,  he  has  misplaced  the  date  of  it  by  an  error  of  ten  or 
twelve  years. 

The  answer  to  the  accusation  is  found  in  his  using  the  word 
‘  first — ‘  And  this  taxing  was  first  made  for  according  to  the  mis¬ 
take  imputed  to  the  evangelist,  this  word  could  have  no  significa¬ 
tion  whatever;  it  could  have  had  no  place  in  his  narrative :  because, 
let  it  relate  to  what  it  will,  taxing,  census,  enrolment,  or  assessment, 
it  imports  that  the  writer  had  more  than  one  of  those  in  contempla¬ 
tion.  It  acquits  him  therefore  of  the  charge :  it  is  inconsistent  with 
the  supposition  of  his  knowing  only  of  the  taxing  in  the  beginning 
of  Cyrenius’s  government.  And  if  the  evangelist  knew  (which  this 
word!  proves  that  he  did)  of  some  other  taxing  beside  that,  it  is  too 
much,  for  the  sake  of  convicting  him  of  a  mistake,  to  lay  it  down  as 
certain  that  he  intended  to  refer  to  that. 

The  sentence  in  Saint  Luke  may  be  construed  thus :  ‘  This  was  the 
first  assessment  (or  enrolment)  of  Cyrenius,  governor  of  Syria  the 
words  ‘  governor  of  Syria  ’  being  used  after  the  name  of  Cyrenius 
as  his  addition  or  title.  And  this  title  belonging  to  him  at  the  time 
of  writing  the  account,  was  naturally  enough  subjoined  to  his  name, 
though  acquired  after  the  transaction  which  the  account  describes. 
A  modern  writer,  who  was  not  very  exact  in  the  choice  of  his  ex¬ 
pressions,  in  relating  the  affairs  of  the  East  Indies,  might  easily  say, 
that  such  a  thing  was  done  by  Governor  Hastings ;  though,  in  truth, 
the  thing  had  been  done  by  him  before  his  advancement  to  the  sta¬ 
tion  from  which  he  received  the  name  of  governor.  And  this,  as 
we  contend,  is  precisely  the  inaccuracy  which  has  produced  the 
difficulty  in  Saint  Luke. 

At  any  rate,  it  appears  from  the  form  of  the  expression,  that  he 
had  two  taxings  or  enrolments  in  contemplation.  And  if  Cyrenius 
had  been  sent  upon  this  business  into  Judea,  before  he  became  gov¬ 
ernor  of  Syria  (against  which  supposition  there  is  no  proof,  but  rather 
external  evidence  of  an  enrolment  going  on  about  this  time  under 
some  person  or  other), t  then  the  census,  on  all  hands  acknowledged 
to  have  been  made  by  him  in  the  beginning  of  his  government. 


*  If  the  word  which  we  render  ‘first,’  be  rendered  ‘  before,’  which  it  has 
been  strongly  contended  that  the  Greek  idiom  allows  of,  the  whole  diffi¬ 
culty  vanishes :  for  then  the  passage  would  be,— ‘  Now  this  taxing  was 
made  before  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria;’  which  corresponds  with 
the  chronology.  But  I  rather  choose  to  argue,  that  however  the  word 
‘first’  be  rendered,  to  give  it  a  meaning  at  all,  it  militates  with  the 
objection.  In  this  I  think  there  can  be  no  mistake. 

t  Josephus  (Antiq.  xvii.  c.  2.  sect.  6,)  has  this  remarkable  passage  : 
‘When  therefore  the  whole  Jewish  nation  took  an  oath  to  be  faithful  to 
Caesar,  and  the  interests  of  the  king.’  This  transaction  corresponds  in 
the  course  of  the  history  with  the  time  of  Christ’s  birth.  What  is  called 
a  census,  and  which  we  render  taxing,  was  delivering  upon  oath  an 
account  of  their  property.  This  might  be  accompanied  with  an  oath  of 
fidelity,  or  might  be  mistaken  by  Josephus  for  it. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  193 

would  form  a  second,  so  as  to  occasion  the  other  to  be  called  the 
first. 

II.  Another  chronological  objection  arises  upon  a  date  assigned  in 
the  beginning  of  the  third  chapter  of  Saint  Luke.* * * §  ‘  Now  in  the 
fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius  Caesar,’ — Jesus  began  to  he 
about  thirty  years  of  age  :  for,  supposing  Jesus  to  have  been  born,  as 
Saint  Matthew,  and  Saint  Luke  also  himself,  relate,  in  the  time  of 
Herod,  he  must,  according  to  the  dates  given  in  Josephus  and  by  the 
Roman  historians,  have  been  at  least  thirt3'-one  years  of  age  in  the 
fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius.  If  he  was  born,  as  Saint  Matthew’s  nar¬ 
rative  intimates,  one  or  two  years  before  Herod’s  death,  he  would 
have  been  thirty-two  or  thirty-three  years  old  at  that  time. 

This  is  the  difficulty :  the  solution  turns  upon  an  alteration  in  the 
construction  of  the  Greek.  Saint  Luke’s  words  in  the  original  are 
allowed,  by  the  general  opinion  of  learned  men,  to  signify,  not  ‘that 
Jesus  began  to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age,’  but  ‘that  he  was  about 
thirty  years  of  age  when  he  began  his  ministry.’  This  construction 
being  admitted,  the  adverb  ‘  about’  gives  us  all  the  latitude  we  want, 
and  more,  especially  when  applied,  as  it  is  in  the  present  instance, 
to  a  decimal  number :  for  such  numbers,  even  without  this  qualify¬ 
ing  addition,  are  often  used  in  a  laxer  sense  than  is  here  contended 
for.t 

III.  Acts  V.  36.  ‘  For  before  these  days  rose  up  Theudas,  boasting 
himself  to  be  somebody;  to  whom  a  number  of  men,  about  four 
hundred,  joined  themselves:  who  was  slain;  and  all,  as  many  as 
obeyed  him,  were  scattered  and  brought  to  naught.’ 

Josephus  has  preserved  the  account  of  an  impostor  of  the  name 
of  Theudas,  who  created  some  disturbances,  and  was  slain ;  but 
according  to  the  date  assigned  to  this  man’s  appearance  (in  which, 
however,  it  is  very  possible  that  Josephus  may  have  been  mislakent), 
it  must  have  been,  at  the  least,  seven  years  after  Gamaliel’s  speech, 
of  which  this  text  is  a  part,  was  delivered.  It  has  been  replied  to 
the  objection.^  that  there  might  be  two  impostors  of  this  name :  and 
it  has  been  observed,  in  order  to  give  a  general  probability  to  the 
solution,  that  the  same  thing  appears  to  have  happened  in  other 
instances  of  the  same  kind.  It  is  proved  from  Josephus,  that  there 
were  not  fewer  than  four  persons  of  the  name  of  Simon  within  forty 
years,  and  not  fewer  than  three  of  the  name  of  Judas  within  ten 


*  Lardner,  part  i.  vol.  ii.  p.  768. 

t  Livy,  speaking  of  tlie  peace  which  the  conduct  of  Romulus  had  pro¬ 
cured  to  the  state,  during  the  w/ioZe  reign  of  liis  successor  (Numa),  hp 
these  words  :|( — ‘  Ab  illo  enim  profectis  viribus  datis  tantum  valuit,  ut,  in 
quadraginta  deinde  annos,  tutam  pacem  habeiet yet  afterwaixl,  in  the 
same  chapter,  ‘Romulus  (he  says)  septem  et  triginta  regnavit  annos. 
Numa  tres  et  quadraginta.’ 

t  Michaelis’s  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament  (Marsh’s  Transla¬ 
tion),  vol.  i.  p.  Gl. 

§  Lardner,  part  i.  vol.  ii.  p.  922. 

Ii  Liv.  Hist.  c.  1.  sect.  16. 


R 


194  Palsy’s  View  of  the 

years,  who  were  all  leaders  of  insurrections :  and  it  is  likewise  re- 
coi’ded  by  the  historian,  that,  upon  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great 
(which  agrees  -very  well  with  the  time  of  the  commotion  referred  to 
by  Gamaliel,  and  with  his  manner  of  stating  that  time,  ‘  before  these 
days  ’),  there  were  innumerable  disturbances  in  Judea.'*'  Archbishop 
Usher  was  of  opinion,  that  one  of  the  three  Judases  above  mentioned 
was  Gamaliel’s  Theudas^t  and  that  with  a  less  variation  of  the 
name  than  we  actually  find  in  the  Gospels,  where  one  of  the  twelve 
apostles  is  called,  by  Luke,  Judas ;  and  by  Mark,  Thaddeus.t  Ori- 
gen,  however  he  came  at  his  information,  appears  to  have  believed 
that  there  was  an  impostor  of  the  name  of  Theudas  before  the  na¬ 
tivity  of  Christ.^ 

IV.  Matt,  xxiii.  34.  ‘  Wherefore,  behold,  I  send  unto  you  propihets, 
and  wise  men,  and  scribes ;  and  some  of  them  ye  shall  kill  and  cru 
cify ;  and  some  of  them  shall  ye  scourge  in  your  synagogues,  and 
persecute  them  from  city  to  city ;  that  upon  you  may  come  all  the 
righteous  blood  shed  upon  the  earth,  from  the  blood  of  righteous 
Abel  unto  the  blood  of  Zacharias^  son  of  Barachias,  whom  ye  slew 
between  the  temple  and  the  altar J 

There  is  a  Zacharias,  whose  death  is  related  in  the  second  book 
of  Chronicles, 11  in  a  manner  which  perfectly  supports  our  Saviour’s 
allusion.  But  this  Zacharias  was  the  son  of  Jehoiada. 

There  is  also  Zacharias  the  prophet ;  who  was  the  son  of  Bara- 
chiah,  and  is  so  described  in  the  superscription  of  his  prophecy,  but 
of  whose  death  we  have  no  account. 

I  have  little  doubt,  but  that  the  first  Zacharias  was  the  person 
spoken  of  by  our  Saviour ;  and  that  the  name  of  the  father  has  been 
since  added,  or  changed,  by  some  one,  who  took  it  from  the  title  of 
the  prophecy,  which  happened  to  be  better  known  to  him  than  the 
history  in  the  Chronicles. 

There  is  likewise  a  Zacharias,  the  son  of  Baruch,  related  by  Jose¬ 
phus  to  have  been  slain  in  the  temple  a  few  years  before  the  de¬ 
struction  of  Jerusalem.  It  has  been  insinuated,  that  the  words  put 
into  our  Saviour’s  mouth  contain  a  reference  to  this  transaction,  and 
were  composed  by  some  writer,  who  either  confounded  the  time  of 
the  transaction  with  our  Saviour’s  age,  or  inadvertelitly  overlooked 
the  anachronism. 

Now  suppose  it  to  have  been  so ;  suppose  these  words  to  have 
been  suggested  by  the  transaction  related  in  Josephus,  and  to  have 
been  falsely  ascribed  to  Christ;  and  observe  what  extraordinary 


Antiq.  1.  xvii.  c.  12.  sect.  4.  t  Annals,  p.  797. 

X  Luke  vi.  16.  Mark  iii.  18.  §  Orig.  cont.  Cels.  p.  44. 

1(  And  the  Spirit  of  God  came  upon  Zecharia,  the  son  of  Jehoiada  the 
priest,  which  stood  above  the  people,  and  said  unto  them,  Thus  saith  God, 
Why  transgress  ye  the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  that  ye  cannot  pros¬ 
per?  Because  ye  have  forsaken  the  Lord,  he  hath  also  forsaken  you. 
And  they  conspired  against  him,  and  stoned  him  with  stones,  at  the  com¬ 
mandment  of  the  king,  in  the  court  of  the  house  of  the  Lord.  2  Chron.  xxiv. 
20,  21., 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  195 

coincidences  (accidentally,  as  it  must  in  that  case  have  been)  attend 
the  forger’s  mistake. 

First,  that  we  have  a  Zacharias  in  the  book  of  Chronicles,  whose 
death,  and  the  manner  of  it,  corresponds  with  the  allusion. 

Secondly,  that  although  the  name  of  this  person’s  father  be  erro¬ 
neously  put  down  in  the  Gospel,  yet  we  have  a  way  of  accounting 
for  the  error,  by  showing  another  Zacharias  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
much  better  known  than  the  former,  whose  patronymic  was  actually 
that  which  appears  in  the  text. 

Every  one  who  thinks  iipon  the  subject,  will  find  these  to  be  cir¬ 
cumstances  which  could  not  have  met  together  in  a  mistake,  which 
did  not  proceed  from  the  circumstances  themselves. 

I  have  noticed,  I  think,  all  the  difficulties  of  this  kind.  They  are 
few  :  some  of  them  admit  of  a  clear,  others  of  a  probable  solution. 
The  reader  will  compare  them  with  the  number,  the  variety,  the 
closeness,  and  the  satisfactoriness,  of  the  instances  which  are  to  be 
set  against  them :  and  he  will  remember  the  scantiness,  in  many 
cases,  of  our  intelligence,  and  that  difficulties  always  attend  imper¬ 
fect  information 


CHAP.  VII. 

Undesigned  Coincidences. 

Between  the  letters  which  bear  the  name  of  Saint  Paul  in  our 
collection,  and  his  history  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  there  exist 
many  notes  of  correspondency.  The  simple  perusal  of  the  writings 
is  sufficient  to  prove,  that  neither  the  history  was  taken  from  the 
letters,  nor  the  letters  from  the  history.  And  the  undesignedness  of 
the  agreements  (which  undesignedness  is  gathered  from  their 
latency,  their  minuteness,  their  obliquity,  the  suitableness  of  the 
circumstances  in  which  they  consist,  to  the  places  in  which  those 
circumstances  occur,  and  the  circuitous  references  by  which  they 
are  traced  out)  demonstrates  that  they  have  not  been  produced  by 
meditation,  or  by  any  fraudulent  contrivance.  But  coincidences 
from  which  these  causes  are  excluded,  and  which  are  too  close  and 
numerous  to  be  accounted  for  by  accidental  concurrences  of  fiction, 
must  necessarily  have  truth  for  their  foundation. 

This  argument  appeared  to  my  mind  of  so  much  value  (espe¬ 
cially  for  its  assuming  nothing  beside  the  existence  of  the  books), 
that  I  have  pursued  it  through  St.  Paul’s  thirteen  epistles,  in  a  work 
published  by  me  four  years  ago,  under  the  title  of  Horse  Paulin®. 
I  am  sensible  how  feebly  any  argument  which  depends  upon  an  in¬ 
duction  of  particulars,  is  repi-esented  without  examples.  On  which 
account,  I  wished  to  have  abridged  my  own  volume,  in  the  manner 
in  which  1  have  treated  Dr.  Lardner’s  in  the  preceding  chapter. 
But,  upon  making  the  attempt,  I  did  not  find  it  in  my  power  to 
render  the  articles  intelligible  by  fewer  words  than  I  have  there 
used.  I  must  be  content,  therefore,  to  refer  the  reader  to  the  work 


196  Paley's  View  of  the 

itself.  And  I  would  particularly  invite  his  attention  to  the  observa 
tions  which  are  made  in  it  upon  the  first  three  epistles.  I  persuade 
myself  that  he  will  find  the  proofs,  both  of  agreement  and  unde¬ 
signedness,  supplied  by  these  epistles,  sufficient  to  support  the  con¬ 
clusion  which  is  there  maintained,  in  favor  both  of  the  genuineness 
of  the  writings  and  the  truth  of  the  narrative. 

It  remains  only,  in  this  place,  to  point  out  how  the  argument 
hears  upon  the  general  question  of  the  Christian  history. 

First,  Saint  Paul  in  these  letters  affirms  in  unequivocal  terms,  his 
own  performance  of  miracles,  and,  what  ought  particularly  to  be 
remembered,  ■*  miracles  were  the  signs  of  an  apostle.'*  If  this 
testimony  come  from  St.  Paul’s  own  hand,  it  is  invaluable.  And 
that  it  does  so,  the  argument  before  us  fixes  in  my  mind  a  firm  as¬ 
surance. 

Secondly,  it  show^s  that  the  series  of  action  represented  in  the 
epistles  of  Saint  Paul,  was  real ;  which  alone  lays  a  foundation  for 
the  proposition  which  forms  the  subject  of  the  first  part  of  our  pres¬ 
ent  work,  viz.  that  the  original  witnesses  of  the  Christian  history 
devoted  themselves  to  lives  of  toil,  suffering,  and  danger,  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  their  belief  of  the  truth  of  that  history,  and  for  the  sake 
of  communicating  the  knowledge  of  it  to  others. 

Thirdly,  it  proves  that  Luke,  or  whoever  was  the  author  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  (for  the  argument  does  not  depend  upon  the 
name  of  the  author,  though  I  know  no  reason  for  questioning  it), 
was  well  acquainted  with  Saint  Paul’s  history ;  and  that  he  proba¬ 
bly  was,  what  he  professes  himself  to  be,  a  companion  of  Saint 
Paul’s  travels ;  which,  if  true,  establishes,  in  a  considerable  degree, 
the  credit  even  of  his  Gospel,  because  it  shows,  that  the  writer, 
fi-om  his  time,  situation,  and  connexion,  possessed  opportunities  of 
informing  himself  truly  concerning  the  transactions  w'hich  he  relates. 
I  have  little  difficulty  in  applying  to  the  Gospel  of  Saint  Luke  what 
is  proved  concerning  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  considering  them  as 
two  parts  of  the  same  history ;  for,  though  there  are  instances  of 
second  parts  being  forgeries,  I  know  none  where  the  second  part  is 
genuine,  and  the  first  not  so. 

I  will  only  observe,  as  a  sequel  of  the  argument,  though  not  no¬ 
ticed  in  my  work,  the  remarkable  similitude  between  the  style  of 
Saint  John’s  Gospel,  and  of  Saint  John’s  Epistle.  The  style  of  Saint 
John’s  is  not  at  all  the  style  of  Saint  Paul’s  Epistles,  though  both 
are  very  singular  5  nor  is  it  the  style  of  Saint  James  s  nor  of  Saint 
Peter’s  Epistle  :  but  it  bears  a  resemblance  to  the  style  of  the  Gos¬ 
pel  inscribed  with  Saint  John’s  name,  so  far  as  that  resemblance 
can  be  expected  to  appear,  which  is  not  in  simple  narrative,  so 
much  as  in  reflections,  and  in  the  representation  of  discourses. 
Writings,  so  circumstanced,  prove  themselves,  and  one  another,  to 
be  genuine.  This  correspondency  is  the  more  valuable,  as  the 
epistle  itself  asserts,  in  Saint  Johrl’s  manner  indeed,  but  in  terms 
.sufficiently  explicit,  the  writer’s  personal  knowledge  of  Christ’s 


*  Rom.  XV.  18,  19.  2  Cor.  xii.  12, 


197 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

history:  ‘That  which  was  from  the  beginning,  which  we  have 
heard,  which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  which  we  have  looked 
upon,  and  our  hands  have  handled,  of  the  word  of  life ;  that  which 
we  have  seen  and  heard,  declare  we  unto  you.’*  Who  would  not 
desire, — who  perceives  not  the  value  of  an  account,  delivered  by  a 
writer  so  well  informed  as  this? 


i 


CHAP.  VIII. 

Of  the  History  of  the  Resurrection. 


The  history  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  a  part  of  the  evidence 
of  Christianity :  but  I  do  not  know,  whether  the  proper  strength  of 
this  passage  of  the  Christian  history,  or  wherein  its  peculiar  value, 
as  a  head  of  evidence,  consists,  be  generally  understood.  It  is  not 
that,  as  a  miracle,  the  resurrection  ought  to  be  accounted  a  more 
decisive  proof  of  supernatural  agency  than  other  miracles  are ;  it  is 
not  that,  as  it  stands  in  the  Gospels,  it  is  better  attested  than  some 
others ;  it  is  not,  for  either  of  these  reasons,  that  more  weight  be¬ 
longs  to  it  than  to  other  miracles,  but  for  the  following,  viz.  That 
it  is  completely  certain  that  the  apostles  of  Christ,  and  the  first 
teachers  of  Christianity,  asserted  the  fact.  And  this  w'ould  have 
been  certain,  if  the  four  Gospels  had  been  lost,  or  never  written. 
Every  piece  of  Scripture  recognizes  the  resurrection.  Every  epistle 
of  every  apostle,  every  author  contemporary  with  the  apostles,  of 
the  age  immediately  succeeding  the  apostles,  every  writing  from 
that  age  to  the  present,  genuine  or  spurious,  on  the  side  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  or  against  it,  concur  in  representing  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  as  an  article  of  his  history,  received  without  doubt  or  disa¬ 
greement  by  all  who  call  themselves  Christians,  as  alleged  from  the 
beginning  by  the  propagators  of  the  institution,  and  alleged  as  the 
centre  of  their  testimony.  Nothing,  I  apprehend,  which  a  man  does 
not  himself  see  or  hear,  can  be  more  certain  to  him  than  this  point. 
I  do  not  mean,  that  nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  Christ  rose 
from  the  dead ;  but  that  nothing  can  be  more  certain,  than  that  his 
apostles,  and  the  first  teachers  of  Christianity,  gave  out  that  he  did 
so.  In  the  other  parts  of  the  gospel  narrative,  a  question  may  be 
made,  whether  the  things  related  of  Christ  be  the  very  things  which 
the  apostles  and  first  teachers  of  the  religion  delivered  concerning 
him  ?  And  this  question  depends  a  good  deal  upon  the  evidence  we 
possess  of  the  genuineness,  or  rather,  perhaps,  of  the  antiquity, 
credit,  and  reception,  of  the  books.  On  the  subject  of  the  resurrec¬ 
tion,  no  such  discussion  is  necessary,  because  no  such  doubt  can  be 
entertained.  The  only  points  which  can  enter  into  our  considera¬ 
tion  are,  whether  the  apostles  knowingly  published  a  falsehood,  or 
whether  they  were  themselves  deceived ;  whether  either  of  these 
suppositions  be  possible.  The  first,  I  think,  is  pretty  generally 


♦  Chap.  i.  ver.  1 — 3. 


R2 


198 


Paley^s  View  of  the 

given  up.  The  nature  of  the  undertaking,  and  of  the  men ;  the  ex¬ 
treme  unlikelihood  that  such  men  should  engage  in  such  a  measure 
as  a  scheme  ;  their  personal  toils,  and  dangers,  and  sufferings,  in  the 
cause ;  their  appropriation  of  their  whole  time  to  the  object ;  the 
w'arm,  and  seemingly  unaffected,  zeal  and  earnestness  ■wdth  which 
they  profess  their  sincerity;  exempt  their  memory  from  the  suspi¬ 
cion  of  imposture.  The  solution  more  deserving  of  notice,  is  that 
which  w’ould  resolve  the  conduct  of  the  apostles  into  enthusiasm ; 
which  would  class  the  evidence  of  Christ’s  resurrection  with  the 
num(?rous  stories  that  are  extant  of  the  apparitions  of  dead  men. 
There  are  circumstances  in  the  narrative,  as  it  is  preserved  in  our 
histories,  which  destroy  this  comparison  entirely.  It  was  not  one 
person,  but  many,  who  saw  him  ;  they  saw  him  not  only  separately 
but  together,  not  only  by  night  but  by  day ;  not  at  a  distance  but 
near;  not  once  but  several  times;  they  not  only  saw  him,  but 
touched  him,  conversed  with  him,  ate  with  him,  examined  his  per¬ 
son  to  satisfy  their  doubts.  These  particulars  are  decisive  :  but 
they  stand,  I  do  admit,  upon  the  credit  of  our  records.  I  would  an¬ 
swer,  therefore,  the  insinuation  of  enthusiasm,  by  a  circumstance 
which  arises  out  of  the  nature  of  the  thing;  and  the  reality  of 
which  must  be  confessed  by  all  who  allow,  w'hat  I  believe  is  not 
denied,  that  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  whether  true  or  false,  was 
asserted  by  his  disciples  from  the  beginning ;  and  that  circumstance 
is,  the  non-production  of  the  dead  body.  It  is  related  in  the  history, 
what  indeed  the  story  of  the  resurrection  necessarily  implies,  that 
the  corpse  was  missing  out  of  the  sepulchre :  it  is  related  also  in 
the  history,  that  the  Jews  reported  that  the  followers  of  Christ  had 
stolen  it  away.*  And  this  account,  though  loaded  with  great  im¬ 
probabilities,  such  as  the  situation  of  the  disciples,  their  fears  for 
their  own  safety  at  the  time,  the  unlikelihood  of  their  expecting  to 
succeed,  the  difficulty  of  actual  success,t  and  the  inevitable  conse¬ 
quence  of  detection  and  failure,  was,  nevertheless,  the  most  credi¬ 
ble  account  that  could  be  given  of  the  matter.  But  it  proceeds 
entirely  upon  the  supposition  of  fraud,  as  all  the  old  objections  did. 
What  account  can  be  given  of  the  body,  upon  the  supposition  of  en- 


*  ‘  And  this  saying  (Saint  Matthew  writes)  is  commonly  reported 
amongst  the  Jews  until  this  day.’  (chap,  xxviii.  15.)  The  evangelist  may 
he  thought  good  authority  as  to  this  point,  even  by  those  who  do  not  ad¬ 
mit  his  evidence  in  every  other  point :  and  this  point  is  sufficient  to 
prove  that  the  body  was  missing. 

It  has  been  rightly,  I  think,  observed  by  Dr.  Townshend,  (Dis.  upon 
the  Res.  p.  126.)  that  the  story  of  the  guards  carried  collusion  upon  the 
face  of  it ‘His  disciples  came  by  night  and  stole  him  away,  while  we 
slept.’  Men  in  their  circumstances  would  not  have  made  such  an  ac¬ 
knowledgment  of  their  negligence,  without  previous  assurances  of  pro¬ 
tection  and  impunity. 

t  ‘  Especially  at  the  full  moon,  the  city  full  of  people,  many  probably 
passing  the  whole  night,  as  Jesus  and  his  disciples  had  done,  in  the  open 
air,  the  sepulchre  so  near  the  city  as  to  be  now  inclosed  within  the 
walls.’  Priestley  on  the  Resurr.  p.  24. 


199 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

thusiasra?  It  is  impossible  our  Lord’s  followers  could  believe  that 
he  was  risen  from  the  dead,  if  his  corpse  was  lying  before  them. 
No  enthusiasm  ever  reached  to  such  a  pitch  of  extravagancy  as 
that :  a  spirit  may  be  an  illusion  ;  a  body  is  a  real  thing,  an  object 
of  sense,  in  which  there  can  be  no  mistake.  All  accounts  of  spec¬ 
tres  leave  the  body  in  the  grave.  And,  although  the  body  of 
Christ  might  be  removed  by  fraud,  and  for  the  purposes  of  fraud, 
yet,  without  any  such  intention,  and  by  sincere  but  deluded  men 
(which  is  the  representation  of  the  apostolic  character  we  are  now 
examining),  no  such  attempt  could  be  made.  The  presence  and 
the  absence  of  the  dead  body  are  alike  inconsistent  with  the  hypo¬ 
thesis  of  enthusiasm ;  for,  if  present,  it  must  have  cured  their  en¬ 
thusiasm  at  once ;  if  absent,  fraud,  not  enthusiasm,  must  have  car¬ 
ried  it  away. 

But  farther,  if  we  admit,  upon  the  concurrent  testimony  of  all  the 
histories,  so  much  of  the  account  as  states  that  the  religion  of  Jesus 
was  set  up  at  Jerusalem,  and  set  up  with  asserting,  in  the  very 
place  in  which  he  had  been  buried,  and  a  few  days  after  he  had 
been  buried,  his  resurrection  out  of  the  grave,  it  is  evident  that,  if 
his  body  could  have  been  found,  the  Jews  would  have  produced  it, 
as  the  shortest  and  completest  answer  possible  to  the  whole  story 
The  attempt  of  the  apostles  could  not  have  survived  this  refutation 
a  moment.  If  we  also  admit,  upon  the  authority  of  Saint  Matthew, 
that  the  Jews  were  advertised  of  the  expectation  of  Christ’s  fol¬ 
lowers,  and  that  they  had  taken  due  precaution  in  consequence  of 
this  notice,  and  that  the  body  was  in  marked  and  public  custody, 
the  observation  receives  more  force  still.  For,  notwithstanding 
their  precaution,  and  although  thus  prepared  and  forewarned ;  when 
the  story  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  came  forth,  as  it  immediately 
did  ;  when  it  was  publicly  asserted  by  his  disciples,  and  made  the 
ground  and  basis  of  their  preaching  in  his  name,  and  collecting  fol¬ 
lowers  to  his  religion,  the  Jews  had  not  the  body  to  produce  :  but 
were  obliged  to  meet  the  testimony  of  the  apostles  by  an  answer, 
not  containing  indeed  any  impossibility  in  itself,  but  absolutely  in¬ 
consistent  with  the  supposition  of  their  integrity  ;  that  is,  in  other 
words,  inconsistent  with  the  supposition  which  would  resolve  their 
conduct  into  enthusiasm. 


CHAP.  IX. 

The  Propagation  of  Christianity. 

In  this  argument,  the  first  consideration  is  the  fact ;  in  what  de 
gree,  within  what  time,  and  to  what  extent,  Christianity  was  actu¬ 
ally  propagated. 


200 


Paley's  View  of  the 


SECT.  I. 

In  what  degree,  within  what  time,  and  to  what  extent,  Christianity  was 

actually  propagated. 

The  accounts  of  the  matter,  which  can  be  collected  from  our 
books,  are  as  follows :  A  few  days  after  Christ’s  disappearance  out 
of  the  world,  we  find  an  assembly  of  disciples  at  Jerusalem,  to  the 
number  of  ‘  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  which  hundred  and 
twenty  were,  probably,  a  little  association  of  believers,  met  together, 
not  merely  as  believers  in  Christ,  but  as  personally  connected  with 
the  apostles,  and  with  one  another.  Whatever  was  the  number  of 
believers  then  in  Jerusalem,  we  have  no  reason  to  be  surprised  that 
so  small  a  company  should  assemble :  for  there  is  no  proof,  that  the 
followers  of  Christ  were  yet  formed  into  a  society;  that  the  society 
W’as  reduced  into  any  order ;  that  it  was  at  this  time  even  under¬ 
stood  that  a  new  religion  (in  the  sense  which  that  term  conveys  to 
us)  w'as  to  be  set  up  in  the  world,  or  how  the  professors  of  that  reli¬ 
gion  were  to  be  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  mankind.  The  death 
of  Christ  had  left,  we  may  suppose,  the  generality  of  his  disciples  in 
great  doubt,  both  as  to  what  they  were  to  do,  and  concerning  what 
was  to  follow. 

This  meeting  was  holden,  as  we  have  already  said,  a  few  days 
after  Christ’s  ascension :  for,  ten  days  after  that  event  was  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  when,  as  our  history  relates,t  upon  a  signal  display  of 
Divine  agency  attending  the  persons  of  the  apostles,  there  were 
added  to  the  society  ‘  about  three  thousand  souls.’t  But  here,  it  is 
not,  I  think,  to  be  taken,  that  these  three  thousand  were  all  convert¬ 
ed  by  this  single  miracle ;  but  rather  that  many,  who  before  were 
believers  in  Christ,  became  now  professors  of  Christianity ;  that  is 
to  say,  when  they  found  that  a  religion  was  to  be  established,  a  soci¬ 
ety  formed  and  set  up  in  the  name  of  Christ,  governed  by  his  laws, 
avowing  their  belief  in  his  mission,  united  amongst  themselves,  and 
separated  from  the  rest  of  the  world  by  visible  distinctions ;  in 
suance  of  their  former  conviction,  and  by  virtue  of  what  they  had 
heard  and  seen  and  known  of  Christ’s  history,  they  publicly  became 

members  of  it.  ,  /•  u  • 

We  read  in  the  fouth  chapter^  of  the  Acts,  that,  soon  after  this, 
‘  the  number  of  the  men,’  i.  e.  the  society  openly  professing  then 
belief  in  Christ,  ‘  was  about  five  thousand.*  So  that  here  is  an  in¬ 
crease  of  two  thousand  within  a  very  short  time.  And  it  is  prob^Ie 
that  there  were  many,  both  now  and  afterward,  who,  although  they 
believed  in  Christ,  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  join  themselves  to 
this  society ;  or  who  waited  to  see  what  was  likely  to  become  of  it. 
Gamaliel,  whose  advice  to  the  Jewish  council  is  recorded  Acts  v. 


*  Acts  i.  15. 


t  Acts  ii.  1. 


J  Acts  ii.  41. 


§  Ver.  4. 


Evidences  of  Christianity^  201 

34,  appears  to  have  been  of  this  description ;  perhaps  Nicodemus, 
and  perhaps  also  Joseph  of  Arimathea.  This  class  of  men,  their 
character  and  their  rank,  are  likewise  pointed  out  by  Saint  John,  in 
the  twelfth  chapter  of  his  Gospel:  ‘Nevertheless,  among  the  chief 
rulers  also,  many  believed  on  him ;  but  because  of  the  Pharisees, 
they  did  not  confess  him,  lest  they  should  be  put  out  of  the  syna¬ 
gogue,  for  they  loved  the  praise  of  men  more  than  the  praise  of  God.’ 
Persons,  such  as  these,  might  admit  the  miracles  of  Christ,  without 
being  immediately  convinced  that  they  were  under  obligation  to 
make  a  public  profession  of  Christianity,  at  the  risk  of  all  that  was 
dear  to  them  in  life,  and  even  of  life  itself.'* * * §' 

Christianity,  however,  proceeded  to  increase  in  Jerusalem  by  a 
progress  equally  rapid  with  its  first  success ;  for,  in  the  nextt  chap¬ 
ter  of  our  history,  we  read  that  ‘  believers  were  the  more  added  to 
the  Lord,  multitudes  both  of  men  and  women.’  And  this  enlarge¬ 
ment  of  the  new  society  appears  in  the  first  verse  of  the  succeeding 
chapter,  w’herein  we  are  told,  that,  ‘  when  the  number  of  the  disci¬ 
ples  was  multiplied,  there  arose  a  murmuring  of  the  Grecians  against 
the  Hebrews,  because  their  widows  were  neglected  :’t  and,  after¬ 
ward  in  the  same  chapter,  it  is  declared  expressly,  that  ‘  the  number 
of  the  disciples  multiplied  in  Jerusalem  greatly,  and  that  a  great 
company  of  the  priests  were  obedient  to  the  faith.’ 

I'his  I  call  the  first  period  in  the  propagation  of  Christianity.  It 
commences  with  the  ascension  of  Christ,  and  extends,  as  may  be 
collected  from  the  incidental  notes  of  time,§  to  something  more  than 
one  year  after  that  event.  During  which  term,  the  preaching  of 
Christianity,  so  far  as  our  documents  inform  us,  was  confined  to  the 
single  city  of  Jerusalem.  And  how  did  it  succeed  there  ?  The  first 
assembly  which  we  meet  with  of  Christ’s  disciples,  and  that  a  few 
days  after  his  removal  from  the  world,  consisted  of  ‘  one  hundred 
and  twenty.’  Alx)ut  a  week  after  this,  ‘  three  thousand  were  added 


*  ‘  Beside  those  who  professed,  and  those  who  rejected  and  opposed, 
Christianity,  there  were,  in  all  probability,  multitudes  between  both,  nei¬ 

ther  perfect  Christians,  nor  yet  unbelievers.  They  had  a  favorable  opinion 
of  the  gospel,  but  worldly  considerations  made  them  unwilling  to  own  it. 
There  were  many  circumstances  which  inclined  them  to  think  that  Chris 
tianity  was  a  Divine  revelation,  but  there  were  many  inconveniences 
which  attended  the  open  profession  of  it :  and  they  could  not  find  in  them¬ 
selves  courage  enough  to  bear  them,  to  disoblige  their  friends  and  family, 
to  ruin  their  fortunes,  to  lose  their  reputation,  their  liberty,  and  their 
life,  for  the  sake  of  the  new  religion.  Therefore  they  were  willing  to 
hope,  that  if  they  endeavored  to  observe  the  great  principles  of  morality, 
which  Christ  had  represented  as  the  principal  part,  the  sum  and  substance, 
of  religion  ;  if  they  thought  honorably  of  the  gospel,  if  they  ofiered  no 
injury  to  the  Christians,  if  they  did  deem  all  the  services  that  they  could 
safely  perform,  they  were  willing  to  hope,  that  God  would  accept  this,  and 
that  He  would  excuse  and  forgive  the  rest.’  Jortin’s  Dis.  on  the  Chris. 
Rel.  p.  91.  ed.  4. 

t  Acts  v.  14.  X  Acts  vi.  1. 

§  Vide  Pearson’s  Antiq.  1.  xviii.  c  7.  Benson’s  History  of  Christ,  book 
i.  p.  148. 

29 


202 


Paley^s  View  of  the 


in  one  day and  the  number  of  Christians  piiblicly  baptized,  and 
publicly  associating  together,  was  very  soon  increased  to  ‘five  thou¬ 
sand.’  ‘  Multitudes  both  of  men  and  women  continued  to  be  added ; 
‘disciples  multiplied  greatly,’  and  ‘many  of  the  Jewish  priesthood, 
as  well  as  others,  became  obedient  to  the  faith  and  this  within  a 
space  of  less  than  two  years  from  the  commencement  of  the  insU- 

By  reason  of  a  persecution  raised  against  the  church  at  Jerusalem, 
the  converts  were  driven  from  that  city,  and  dispersed  throughout 
the  regions  of  Judea  and  Samaria.’^  Wherever  they  came,  they 
brought  their  religion  with  them;  for,  our  historian  informs  us, t 
that  ‘  they  that  were  scattered  abroad,  went  everywhere  preaching 
the  word.’  The  effect  of  this  preaching  comes  afterward  to  be 
noticed,  where  the  historian  is  led,  in  the  course  of  his  narrative,  to 
observe,  that  then,  {i  e.  about  three  years  posterior  to  this,;)  ‘  the 
churches  had  rest  throughout  all  Judea  and  Galilee  and  ^maria, 
and  were  edified,  and  walking  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the 
comfort  of'the  Holy  Ghost,  were  multiplied.’  This  was  the  work 
of  the  second  period,  which  comprises  about  four  years. 

Hitherto  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  had  been  confined  to  Jews, 
to  Jewish  proselytes,  and  to  Samaritans.  And  I  cannot  forbear  frp™ 
setting  down  in  this  place,  an  observation  of  Mr.  Bryant,  which 
appears  to  me  to  be  perfectly  well  founded: — ‘The  Jews  still  re¬ 
main  :  but  how  seldom  is  it  that  w’e  can  make  a  single  proselyte . 
There  is  reason  to  think,  that  there  were  more  converted  by  the 
apostles  in  one  day,  than  have  since  been  won  over  in  the  last  thou¬ 
sand  years.’^  *  tu  , 

It  was  not  yet  known  to  the  apostles,  that  they  were  at  libeny  to 
propose  the  religion  to  mankind  at  large.  That  ‘  mystery,  as  Saint 
Paul  calls  it,l|  and  as  it  then  was,  was  revealed  to  Peter  by  an  espe¬ 
cial  miracle.  It  appears  to  have  beenlT  about  seven  years  after 
Christ’s  ascension,  that  the  Gospel  was  preached  to  the  Gentiles  of 
Cesarea.  A  year  after  this,  a  great  multitude  of  Gentiles  were  con¬ 
verted  at  Antioch  in  Syria.  The  expressions  employed  by  the  histo¬ 
rian  are  these : — ‘A  great  number  believed,  and  turned  to  the  Lord; 
‘  much  people  was  added  unto  the  Lord ;’  ‘  the  apostles  Barnabaf 
and  Paul  taught*  much  people.’**  Upon  Herod’s  death,  ^^ich  hap 
pened  in  the  next  year,tt  it  is  observed,  that  ‘  the  word  of  God  gren 
and  multiplied.’tt  Three  years  from  this  time,  upon  the  preachim 
of  Paul  at  Iconium,  the  metropolis  of  Lycaonia,  ‘  a  great  multitudi 
both  of  Jews  and  Greeks  believed  and  afterward,  in  the  coursi 
of  this  very  progress,  he  is  represented  as  ‘  making  many  disciples 
at  Derbe,  a  principal  city  in  the  same  district.  Three  yearsHH  afte 
this,  which  brings  us  to  sixteen  after  the  ascension,  the  apostle 


♦  Acts  viii.  1.  Ver.  4.  t  Benson,  book  i.  p.  207 

8  Bryant  on  the  Truth  of  the  Christian  Religion,  p.  112. 

I  Eph.  iii.  3—6.  11  Benson,  book  ii.  p.  236. 

**  Acts  xi.  21.  24.  26.  tt  Benson,  book  ii.  p.  ^9. 

;;  Acts  xii.  24.  §§  Acts  xiv.  1.  |ll  Benson,  book  in.  p.  50. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  208 

wrote  a  public  letter  from  Jerusalem  to  the  Gentile  converts  in 
Antioch,  Syria,  and  Cilicia,  with  which  letter  Paul  travelled  through 
these  countries,  and  foimd  the  churches  ‘  established  in  the  faith, 
pd  increasing  in  number  daily.’*  From  Asia,  the  apostle  proceeded 
into  Greece,  where  soon  after  his  arrival  in  Macedonia,  we  find  him 
at  Thessalonica ;  in  wdiich  city,  ‘some  of  the  Jew's  believed,  and  of 
the  devout  Greeks  a  great  multitude.’t  We  meet  also  here  with  an 
accidental  hint  of  the  general  progress  of  the  Christian  mission,  in 
the  exclamation  of  the  tumultuous  Jews  of  Thessalonica,  ‘that  they, 
who  had  turned  the  world  upside  down,  were  come  thither  also.’l 
At  Berea,  the  next  city  at  which  Paul  arrives,  the  historian,  who 
was  'present,  informs  us  that  ‘  many  of  the  Jews  believed. The 
next  year  and  a  half  of  Saint  Paul’s  ministry  was  spent  at  Corinth. 
Of  his  success  in  that  city,  we  receive  the  following  intimations ; 
‘  that  many  of  the  Corinthians  believed  and  were  baptized ;’  and 
‘  that  it  was  revealed  to  the  apostle  by  Christ,  that  he  had  much  peo¬ 
ple  in  that  city.’H  Within  less  than  a  year  after  his  departure  from 
Corinth,  and  twenty-fivelT  years  after  the  ascension.  Saint  Paul  fixed 
his  station  at  Ephesus,  for  the  space  of  two  yearn* § **  and  something 
more.  The  effect  of  his  ministry  in  that  city  and  neighborhood  drew 
from  the  historian  a  reflection,  how  ‘  mightily  grew  the  word  of  God 
and  prevailed.’tt  And  at  the  conclusion  of  this  period,  w'e  find 'De¬ 
metrius  at  the  head  of  a  party,  who  were  alarmed  by  the  progress  of 
the  religion,  complaining,  that  ‘not  only  at  Ephesus,  but  also  through¬ 
out  all  Asia  (f.  e.  the  province  of  Lydia,  and  the  country  adjoining 
to  Ephesus),  this  Paul  hath  persuaded  and  turned  away  much  peo- 
ple.’tt  Beside  these  accounts,  there  occurs,  incidentally,  mention 
of  converts  at  Rome,  Alexandria,  Athens,  Cyprus,  Cyrene,  Macedo¬ 
nia,  Philippi. 

This  is  the  third  period  in  the  propagation  of  Christianity,  setting 
off  in  the  seventh  year  after  the  ascension,  and  ending  at  the 
twenty-eighth.  Now,  lay  these  three  periods  together,  and  observe 
how  the  progress  of  the  religion  by  these  accounts  is  represented. 
The  institution,  which  properly  began  only  after  its  author’s  re¬ 
moval  from  the  world,  before  the  end  of  thirty  years  had  spread 
itself  through  Judea,  Galilee,  and  Samaria,  almost  all  the  numerous 
districts  of  the  Lesser  Asia,  through  Greece,  and  the  islands  of  the 
riEgean  Sea,  the  sea-coast  of  Africa,  and  had  extended  itself  to 
Rome,  and  into  Italy.  At  Antioch  in  Syria,  at  Joppa,  Ephesus, 
Corinth,  Thessalonica,  Berea,  Iconium,  Derbe,  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  at 
Lydda,  Saron,  the  number  of  converts  is  intimated  by  the  expres¬ 
sions,  ‘  a  great  number,’  ‘  great  multitude,’  ‘  much  people.’  Con¬ 
verts  are  mentioned,  without  any  designation  of  their  number,'S$  at 


*  Acts  xvi.  5.  +  Acts  xvii.  4.  J  Acts  xvii.  6. 

§  Acts  xvii.  12.  11  Acts  xviii.  8—10.  U  Benson,  book  iii.  p.  160. 

**  Acts  xix.  10.  tt  Acts  xix.  20.  J j  Acts  xix.  26. 

§§  Considering  the  extreme  conciseness  of  many  parts  of  the  history, 
the  silence  about  the  numbers  of  converts  is  no  proof  of  their  paucity; 
for  at  Philippi,  no  mention  whatever  is  made  of  the  number,  yet  Saint 


204 


Paley’s  View  of  the 


Tyre,  Cesarea,  Troas,  Athens,  Philippi,  Lystra,  Damascus.  During 
all  this  time,  Jerusalem  continued  not  only  the  centre  of  the 
mission,  but  a  principal  seat  of  the  religion  ;  for  when  Saint  Paul 
turned  thither  at  the  conclusion  of  the  period  of  which  we  are  now 
considering  the  accounts,  the  other  apostles  pointed  out  to  him,  as  a 
reason  for  his  compliance  with  their  advice,  ;how  many  thousands 
(myriads,  ten  thousands)  there  were  in  that  city  who  believed.’^ 

Upon  this  abstract,  and  the  writing  from  which  it  is  drawn,  the 
following  observations  seem  material  to  be  made : 

I.  That  the  account  comes  from  a  person,  who  was  himself  con¬ 
cerned  in  a  portion  of  what  he  relates,  and  was  contemporary  vyith 
the  whole  of  it;  who  visited  Jerusalem,  and  frequented  the  society 
of  those  who  had  acted,  arid  were  acting,  the  chief  parts  in  the 
transaction.  I  lay  down  this  point  positively;  forbad  the  ancient 
attestations  to  this  valuable  record  been  less  satisfactory  than  they 
are,  the  unaffectedness  and  simplicity  with  which  the  author  notes 
his  presence  upon  certain  occasions,  and  the  entire  absence  of  art 
and  design  from  these  notices,  would  have  been  sufficient  to  per¬ 
suade  my  mind,  that  whoever  he  was,  he  actually  lived  in  the 
times,  and  occupied  the  situation,  in  which  he  represents  himself  to 
be.  When  I  say,  ‘  whoever  he  was,’  I  do  not  mean  to  cast  a  doubt 
upon  the  name  to  which  antiquity  hath  ascribed  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  (for  there  is  no  cause  that  I  am  acquainted  with,  for  que^ 
tioning  it),  but  to  observe  that,  in  such  a  case  as  this,  the  time  and 
situation  of  the  author  are  of  more  importance  than  his  name  ;  and 
that  these  appear  from  the  work  itself,  and  in  the  most  unsuspicious 

form.  ,  /■  1,  V 

II.  That  this  account  is  a  very  incomplete  account  of  the  preacor 

ing  and  propagation  of  Christianity ;  I  mean,  that,  if  what  we  read 
in  the  history  be  true,  much  more  than  what  the  history  contains 
must  be  true  also.  For,  although  the  narrative  from  which  our  in¬ 
formation  is  derived,  has  been  entitled  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  it 
is  in  fact  a  history  of  the  twelve  apostles  only  during  a  short  time  of 
their  continuing  together  at  Jerusalem ;  and  even  of  this  period  the 
account  is  very  concise.  The  work  afterward  consis^  of  a  few  im¬ 
portant  passages  of  Peter’s  ministry,  of  the  speech  and  death  of  Ste¬ 
phen,  of  the  preaching  of  Philip  the  deacon ;  and  the  sequel  of  the 
volume,  that  is,  two-thirds  of  the  whole,  is  taken  up  with  the  con¬ 
version,  the  travels,  the  discourses,  and  history  of  the  o&w  apostle, 
Paul ;  in  which  history,  also,  large  portions  of  time  are  often  passed 
over  with  very  scanty  notice. 


Paul  addressed  an  epistle  to  that  church.  The  churches  of  Galatia,  and 
the  affairs  of  those  churches,  were  considerable  enough  to  be  the  subject 
of  another  letter,  and  of  much  of  Saint  Paul’s  solicitude  :  yet  no  account 
is  preserved  in  the  history  of  his  success,  or  even  of  his  preaching  jn  that 
country,  except  the  slight  notice  which  these  words 
they  had  gone  throughout  Phrygia,  and  the  region  of  Galatia— they 
essayed  to  go  into  Bithynia.’  Acts  xvi,  6. 

*  Acts  xxi.  20. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  205 

III.  That  the  account,  so  far  as  it  goes,  is  for  this  very  reason 
nore  credible.  Had  it  been  the  author’s  design  to  have  displayed 
he  early  progress  of  Christianity,  he  would  undoubtedly  have  col- 
ected,  or,  at  least,  have  set  forth,  accounts  of  the  preaching  of  the 
est  of  the  apostles,  who  cannot,  without  extreme  improbability,  be 
iupposed  to  have  remained  silent  and  inactive,  or  not  to  have  nmt 
vith  a  share  of  that  success  which  attended  their  colleagues.  To 
vhich  may  be  added,  as  an  observation  of  the  same  kind, 

IV.  That  the  intimations  of  the  number  of  converts,  and  of  the 
iuccess  of  the  preaching  of  the  apostles,  come  out  for  the  most  part 
Ticidentallii  ,■  are  drawn  from  the  historian  by  the  occasion  \  such 
IS  the  murmuring  of  the  Grecian  converts  ;  the  rest  from  persecu- 
ion  ;  Herod’s  death ;  the  sending  of  Barnabas  to  Antioch,  and  Bar- 
labas  calling  Paul  to  his  assistance  ;  Paul  coming  to  a  place,  and 
finding  there  disciples;  the  clamor  of  the  Jews;  the  complaint  oi 
irtificers  interested  in  the  support  of  the  popular  religion ;  the  rea^ 
son  assigned  to  induce  Paul  to  give  satisfaction  to  the  Christians  of 
Jerusalem.  Had  it  not  been  for  these  occasions,  it  is  probable  that 
no  notice  whatever  would  have  been  taken  of  the  number  of  con¬ 
verts  in  several  of  the  passages  in  which  that  notice  now  appears. 
All  this  tends  to  remove  the  suspicion  of  a  design  to  exaggerate  or 

J6C61VG* 

Parallel  testimonies  with  the  history,  are  the  letters  of  Saint 
Paul,  and  of  the  other  apostles,  which  have  come  down  to  us. 
Those  of  Saint  Paul  are  addressed  to  the  churches  of  Corinth, 
Philippi,  Thessalonica,  the  church  of  Galatia,  and,  if  the  inscription 
be  right,  of  Ephesus ;  his  ministry  at  all  wdiich  places,  is  recorded 
in  the  history :  to  the  church  of  Colosse,  or  rather  to  the  churches 
of  Colosse  and  Laodicea  jointly,  which  he  had  not  then  visited. 
They  recognize  by  reference  the  churches  of  Judea,  the  churches 
of  Asia,  and  ‘all  the  churches  of  the  Gentiles.’*  In  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,!  the  author  is  led  to  deliver  a  remarkable  declaration 
concerning  the  extent  of  his  preaching,  its  efficacy,  and  the  cause 
to  which  he  ascribes  it, — ‘  to  make  the  Gentiles  obedient  by  word 
and  deed,  through  mighty  signs  and  wonders,  by  the  power  of  the 
Spirit  of  God ;  so  that  from  Jerusalem,  and  round  about  unto  Illyri 
cum,  I  have  fully  preached  the  Gospel  of  Christ.’  In  the  Epistl 
to  the  Colossians,!  we  find  an  oblique  but  very  strong  signification 
of  the  then  general  state  of  the  Christian  mission,  at  least  as  it  ap¬ 
peared  to  Saint  Paul:— ‘If  ye  continue  in  the  faith,  grounded  and 
settled,  and  be  not  moved  away  from  the  hope  of  the  Gospel,  which 
ye  have  heard,  and  which  was  preached  to  every  creature  which  is 
under  heaven which  Gospel,  he  had  reminded  them  near  the  be- 
ginning§  of  his  letter,  ‘  was  present  with  them,  as  it  was  in  all  the 
world’  The  expressions  are  hyperbolical ;  but  they  are  hyperboles 
which  could  only  be  used  by  a  writer  who  entertained  a  strong 
sense  of  the  subject.  The  first  epistle  of  Peter  accosts  the  Christians 


♦  1  Tliess.  ii.  14.  t  Rora.  xv.  18,  19  j  Col.  i  23.  §  Col.  i.  6. 

S 


206  Paley^s  View  of  the 

tlispersed  throughout  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and 
Bithynia. 

It  comes  next  to  be  considered,  how  far  these  accounts  are  con¬ 
firmed,  or  followed  up  by  other  evidence. 

Tacitus,  in  delivering  a  relation,  which  has  already  been  laid  be¬ 
fore  the  reader,  of  the  fire  which  happened  at  Rome  in  the  tenth 
year  of  Nero  (which  coincides- with  the  thirtieth  year  after  Christ’s 
ascension),  asserts,  that  the  emperor,  in  order  to  suppress  the  rumors 
of  having  been  himself  the  author  of  the  mischief,  procured  the 
Christians  to  be  accused.  Of  which  Christians,  thus  brought  into 
his  narrative,  the  following  is  so  much  of  the  historian’s  account  as 
belongs  to  our  present  purpose :  ‘  They  had  their  denomination  from 
Christus,  who,  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius,  was  put  to  death  as  a  crimi¬ 
nal  by  the  procurator  Pontius  Pilate.  This  pernicious  superstition, 
though  checked  for  awhile,  broke  out  again,  gnd  spread  not  only 
over  Judea,  but  reached  the  city  also.  At  first,  they  only  were  ap¬ 
prehended  who  confessed  themselves  of  that  sect;  afterward  a 
vast  multitude  w'ere  .discovered  by  them.’  This  testimony  to  the 
early  propagation  of  Christianity  is  extremely  material.  It  is  from 
an  historian  of  great  reputation,  living  near  the  time ;  from  a  stranger 
and  an  enemy  to  the  religion ;  and  it  joins  immediately  with  the 
period  through  which  the  Scripture  accounts  extend.  It  estaVilishes 
these  points :  that  the  religion  began  at  Jerusalem ;  that  it  spread 
throughout  Judea ;  that  it  had  reached  Rome,  and  not  only  so,. but 
that  it  had  there  obtained  a  great  number  of  converts.  This  was 
about  six  years  after  the  time  that  Saint  Paul  wrote  his  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  and  something  more  than  two  years  after  he  arrived 
there  himself.  The  converts  to  the  religion  were  then  so  numerous 
at  Rome,  that,  of  those  who  were  betrayed  by  the  information  of 
the  persons  first  persecuted,  a  great  multitude  (multitude  ingens) 
w'ere  discovered  and  seized. 

It  seems  probable,  that  the  temporary  check  which  Tacitus  repre¬ 
sents  Christianity  to  have  received  (repressa  in  prmsens)  referred  to 
the  persecution  at  Jerusalem,  which- followed  the  death  of  Stephen 
(Acts  viii.) ;  and  which,  by  dispersing  the  converts,  caused  the  in¬ 
stitution,  in  some  measure,  to  disappear.  Its  second  eruption  at  the 
same  place,  and  within  a  short  time,  has  much  in  it  of  the  character 
of  truth.  It  was  the  firmness  and  perseverance  of  men  who  knew 
what  they  relied  upon. 

Next  in  order  of  time,  and  perhaps  superior  in  importance,  is  the 
testimony  of  Pliny  the  Younger.  Pliny  was  the  Roman  governor 
of  Ponliis  and  Bithynia,  two  considerable  districts  in  the  northern 
part  of  Asia  Minor.  The  situation  in  which  he  found  his  province, 
led  him  to  apply  to  the  emperor  (Trajan)  for  his  direction  as  to  the 
conduct  he  was  to  hold  tow'ards  the  Christians.  The  letter  in 
which  this  application  is  contained,  was  written  not  quite  eighty 
years  after  Christ’s  ascension.  The  president  in  this  letter,  states 
the  measures  he  had  already  pursued,  and  then  adds,  as  his  reason 
for  resorting  to  the  emperor’s  counsel  and  aitthority,  the  following 


207 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

words: — ‘Suspending  all  judicial  proceedings,  I  have  recourse  to 
you  for  advice ;  for  it  has  appeared  to  me  a  matter  highly  deserving 
consideration,  especially  on  account  of  the  great  number  of  persons 
who  are  in  danger  of  suffering :  for,  many  of  all  ages,  and  of  every 
rank,  of  both  sexes  likewise,'are  accused,  and  will  be  accused.  Nor 
has  the  contagion  of  this  superstition  seized  cities  only,  but  the  lesser 
towns  also,  and  the  open  country.  Nevertheless  it  seemed  to  me, 
that  it  ma5r  be  restrained  and  corrected.  It  is  certain  that  the  tem¬ 
ples,  which  were  almost  forsaken,  begin  to  be  more  frequented ; 
and  the  sacred  solemnities,  after  a  long  intermission,  are  revived. 
Victims,  likewise,  are  everywhere  (passim)  bought  up ;  whereas, 
for  some  time,  there  were  few  to  purchase  them.  Whence  it  is 
easy  to  imagine,  that  numbers  of  men  might  be  reclaimed,  if  pardon 
were  granted  to  those  that  shall  repent.’* 

It  is  obvious  to  observe,  that  the  passage  of  Pliny’s  letter,  here 
quoted,  proves,  not  only  that  the  Christians  in  Pontus  and  Bithynia 
were  now  numerous,  but  that  they  had  subsisted  there  for  some 
considerable  time.  ‘  It  is  certain,’  he  says,  ‘  that  the  temples,  which 
were  almost  forsaken  (plainly  ascribing  this  desertion  of  the  popular 
worship  to  the  prevalency  of  Christianity),  begin  to  be  more  fre¬ 
quented,  and  the  sacred  solemnities,  after  a  long  intermission,  are 
revived.’  There  are  also  two  clauses  in  the  former  part  of  the  let¬ 
ter,  which  indicate  the  same  thing  ;  one,  in  which  he  declares  that 
he  had  ‘  never  been  present  at  any  trials  of  Christians,  and  there¬ 
fore  knew  not  what  was  the  usual  subject  of  inquiry  and  punish¬ 
ment,  or  how  far  either  was  wont  to  be  urged.’  The  second  clause 
is  the  following :  ‘  Others  were  named  by  an  informer,  who,  at  first, 
confessed-  themselves  Christians,  and  afterward  denied  it ;  the  rest 
said,  they  had  been  Christians,  some  three  years  ago,  some  longer, 
and  some  about  twenty  years.’  It  is  also^  apparent,  that  Pliny 
speaks  of  the  Christians  as  a  description  of  men  well  known  to  the 
person  to  wdiom  he  writes.  His  first  sentence  concerning  them  is, 
‘I  have  never  been  present  at  the  trials  of  Christians.’  This  men¬ 
tion  of  the  name  of  Christians,  without  any  preparatory  explanation, 
shows  that  it  was  a  term  familiar  both  to  the  writer  of  the  letter, 
and  the  person  to  whom  it  was  addressed.  Had  it  not  been  so, 
Pliny  w'ould  naturally  have  begun  his  letter  by  informing  the  em¬ 
peror,  that  he  had  met  with  a  certain  set  of  men  in  the  province, 
failed  Christians.^ 

Here  then  is  a  very  singular  evidence  of  the  progress  of  the 
Christian  religion  in  a  short  space.  It  was  not  fourscore  years 
after  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus,  when  Pliny  wrote  this  letter; 
nor  seventy  years  since  the  apostles  of  Jesus  began  to  mention  his 
name  to  the  Gentile  world.  Bithynia  and  Pontus  were  at  a  great 
distance  from  Judea,  the  centre  from  which  the  religion  spread  ; 
yet  in  these  provinces,  Christianity  had  long  subsisted,  and  Chris¬ 
tians  were  now  in  such  numbers  as  to  lead  the  Roman  governor  to 
report  to  the  emperor,  that  they  were  found  not  only  in  cities,  but 


*  C.  Plin.  Trajano  Imp.  lib.  x.  ep.  xcvii. 


208 


Paley's  View  of  the 

in  villages  and  in  open  countries ;  of  all  ages,  ol*  every  rank  and 
condition;  that  they  abounded  so  much,  as  to  have  produced  a 
visible  desertion  of  the  temples ;  that  beasts  brought  to  market  for 
victims,  had  few  purchasers;  that  the  sacred  solemnities  were 
much  neglected : — circumstances  noted  by  Pliny,  for  the  express 
purpose  of  showing  to  the  emperor  the  effect  and  prevalency  of  the 
new  institution. 

No  evidence  remains,  by  which  it  can  be  proved  that  the  Chris¬ 
tians  were  more  numerous  in  Pontus  and  Bithynia  than  in  other 
parts  of  the  Roman  empire ;  nor  has  any  reason  been  offered  to 
show  why  they  should  be  so.  Christianity  did  not  begin  in  these 
countries,  nor  near  them.  I  do  not  know,  therefore,  that  we  ought 
to  confine  the  description  in  Pliny’s  letter  to  the  state  of  Christianity 
in  those  provinces,  even  if  no  other  account  of  the  same  subject  had 
come  down  to  us ;  but,  certainly,  this  letter  may  fairly  be  applied 
n  aid  and  confirmation  of  the  representations  given  of  the  general 
tate  of  Christianity  in  the  world,  by  Christian  writers  of  that  and 
the  next  succeeding  age. 

J ustin  Martyr,  who  wrote  about  thirty  years  after  Pliny,  and  one 
hundred  and  six  after  the  Ascension,  has  these  remarkable  words ; 
‘There  is  not  a  nation,  either  of  Greek  or  Barbarian,  or  of  any 
other  name,  even  of  those  who  wander  in  tribes,  and  live  in  tents, 
amongst  whom  prayers  and  thanksgivings  are  not  offered  to  the 
Father  and  Creator  of  the  Universe  by  the  name  of  the  crucified 
Jesus.’*  Tertullian,  who  comes  about  fifty  years  after  Justin,  ap¬ 
peals  to  the  governors  of  the  Roman  empire  in  these  terras :  ‘  We 
were  but  of  yesterday,  and  wo  have  filled  your  cities,  islands,  towns, 
and  boroughs,  the  camp,  the  senate,  and  the  forum.  They  (the 
heathen  adversaries  of  Christianity)  lament,  that  every  sex,  age,  and 
condition,  and  persons  of  eveiy  rank  also,  are  converts  to  that 
name.’t  I  do  allow,  that  these  expressions  are  loose,  and  may  be 
called  declamatory.  But  even  declamation  hath  its  bounds :  this 
public  boasting  upon  a  subject  which  imist  be  known  to  every  read¬ 
er  was  not  only  useless  but  unnatural,  eyeless  the  truth  of  the  case, 
in  a  considerable  degree,  correspond  with  the  description ;  at  least, 
unless  it  had  been  both  true  and  notorious,  that  great  multitudes  of 
Christians,  of  all  ranks  and  orders,  were  to  be  found  in  most  parts 
of  the  Roman  empire.  The  same  Tertullian,  in  another  passage, 
by  way  of  setting  forth  the  extensive  diffusion  of  Christianity,  enu¬ 
merates  as  belonging  to  Christ,  beside  many  other  countries,  the 
‘  Moors  and  Gsetulians  of  Africa,  the  borders  of  Spain,  several  na- 
ons  of  France,  and  parts  of  Britain,  inaccessible  to  the  Romans,  the 
amaritans,  Daci,  Germans,  and  Scythians,’!  and,  which  is  more 
material  than  the  extent  of  the  institution,  the  number  of  Christians 
in  the  several  countries  in  which'  it  prevailed,  is  thus  expressed  by 
him:  ‘Although  so  great  a  multitude  that  in  almost  every  city  we 
form  the  greater  part,  we  pass  our  time  modestly  and  in  silence.’'^ 


*  Dial,  cum  Tryph. 
J  Ad.  Jud.  c.  7, 


t  Teitiill.  Apoll.  c.  37. 
§  Ad.  Scap.  c.  111. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  209 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who  preceded  Tertnllian  by  a  few  years 
introduces  a  comparison  between  the  success  of  Cliristianity  and 
that  of  the  most  celebrated  philosophical  institutions  :  ‘  The  philo¬ 
sophers  were  confined  to  Greece,  and  to  their  particular  retainers  ; 
but  the  doctrine  of  the  Master  of  Christianity  did  not  remain  in 
Judea,  as  philosophy  did  in  Greece,  but  it  spread  throughout  the 
whole  world,  in  every  nation,  and  village,  and  city,  both  of  Greeks 
and  Barbarians,  converting  both  whole  houses  and  separate  indi¬ 
viduals,  having  already  brought  over  to  the  truth  not  a  few  of  the 
philosophers  themselves.  If  the  Greek  philosophy  be  prohibited,  it 
immediately  vanishes;  whereas,  from  the  first  preaching  of  our 
doctrine,  kings  and  tyrants,  governors  and  presidents,  with  their 
whole  train,  and  with  the  populace  on  their  side,  have  endeavored 
with  their  whole  might  to  exterminate  it,  yet  doth  it -flourish  more 
and  more.’'*'  Origen,  who  follows  Tertullian  at  the  distance  of  only 
thirty  years,  delivers  nearly  the  same  account :  ‘  In  every  part  of 
the  world  (says  he),  throughout  all  Greece,  and  in  all  other  nations, 
there  are  innumerable  and  immense  multitudes,  who,  having  left 
the  laws  of  their  country,  and  those  whom  they  esteemed  gods, 
have  given  themselves  up  to  the  law  of  Moses,  and  the  religion  of 
Christ :  and  this  not  without  the  bitterest  resentment  from  the  idol¬ 
aters,  by  whom  they  were  frequently  put  to  torture,  and  sometimes 
to  death :  and  it  is  wonderful  to  observe,  how,  in  so  short  a  time, 
the  religion  has  increased,  amidst  punishment  and  death,  and  every 
kind  of  torture.’t  In  another  passage,  Origen  draws  the  following 
candid  comparison  between  the  state  of  Christianity  in  his  time,  and 
the  condition  of  its  more  primitive  ages :  ‘  By  the  good  providence 
of  God,  the  Christian  religion  has  so  flourished  and  increased  con¬ 
tinually,  that  it  is  now  preached  freely  without  molestation,  although 
there  were  a  thousand  obstacles  to  the  spreading  of  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  in  the  world.  But  as  it  was  the  will  of  God  that  the  Gentiles 
should  have  the  benefit  of  it,  all  the  Counsels  of  men  against  the 
Christians  were  defeated ;  and  by  how  much  the  more  emperors 
and  governors  of  provinces,  and  the  people  everywhere,  strove  to 
depress  them ;  so  much  the  more  have  they  increased,  and  pre¬ 
vailed  exceedingly.’t 

It  is  well  known,  that  within  less  than  eighty  years  after  this,  the 
Roman  empire  became  Christian  under  Constantine  :  and  it  is  prob¬ 
able  that  Constantine  declared  himself  on  the  side  of  the  Christians, 
because  they  w’ere  the  powerful  party;  for  Arnobius,  who  wrote 
immediately  before  Constantine’s  accession,  speaks  of  the  w’hole 
world  as  filled  wfith  Christ’s  doctrine,  of  its  diffusion  throughout  all 
countries,  of  an  innumerable  body  of  Christians  in  distant  provinces, 
of  the  strange  revolution  of  opinion  of  men  of  the  greatest  genius, 
orators,  grammarians,  rhetoricians,  lawyers,  plwsicians,  having  come 
over  to  the  institution,  and  that  also  in  the  lace  of  threats,  execu- 


*  Clem.  Al.  Strum,  lib.  vi.  ad  fin.  t  Orig.  in  Cels,  lib 

t  Orig.  cont.  Cels.  lib.  vii. 

S  2 


210 


Paley's  View  of  the 

tions,  and  tortures.'*'  And  not  more  than  twenty  years  after  Con¬ 
stantine’s  entire  possession  of  the  empire,  Julius  Firmicus  Maternus 
calls  upon  the  emperors  Constantins  and  Constans  to  extirpate  the 
relics  of  the  ancient  religion ;  the  reduced  and  fallen  condition  of 
which  is  described  by  our  author  in  the  following  words :  ‘  IJcet 
adhuc  in  quibusdam  regionibus  idololatriae  morientia  palpitent  mem¬ 
bra  ;  tamen  in  eo  reo  est,  ut  a  Christianis  omnibus  terris  pestiferum 
hoc  malum  funditiis  amputetur and  in  another  place,  ‘  Modicum 
tantum  superest,  ut  legibus  vestris — extincta  idololatrae  pereat  fu- 
iiesta  contagio.’t  It  will  not  be  thought  that  we  quote  this  writer 
m  order  to  recommend  his  temper  or  his  judgment,  but  to  sliow  the 
comparative  state  of  Christianity  and  of  Heathenism  at  this  period. 
Fifty  years  afterward,  Jerome  represents  the  decline  of  Paganism 
in  language  which  conveys  the  same  idea  of  its  approaching  extinc¬ 
tion  :  ‘  Solitudinem  patitur  et  in  urbe  gentilitas.  Dii  quondam  na- 
lionam,  cum  bubonibus  et  noctuis,  in  solis  culminibus  remanserunt’t 
Jerome  here  indulges  a  triumph,  natural  and  allowable  in  a  zealous 
friend  of  the  cause,  but  which  could  only  be  suggested  to  his  mind 
by  the  consent  and  universality  with  which  he  saw  the  religion 
received.  ‘  But  now  (says  he)  the  passion  and  resurrection  of  Christ 
are  celebrated  in  the  discourses  and  writings  of  all  nations.  I  need 
not  mention,  Jew's,  Greeks,  and  Latins.  The  Indians,  Persians, 
Goths,  and  Egyptians  philosophize,  and  firmly  believe  the  immor¬ 
tality  of  the  soul,  and  future  recompenses,  which,  before,  the  greatest 
philosophers  had  denied^  or  doubted  of,  or  perplexed  with  their  dis¬ 
putes.  The  fierceness  of  Thracians  and  Scythians  is  now  softened 
by  the  gentle  sound  of  the  Gospel;  and  everywhere  Christ  is  all  in 
all.’$  Were  therefore  the  motives  of  Constantine’s  conversion  ever 
so  problematical,  the  easy  establishment  of  Christianity,  and  the 
ruin  of  Pleathenism,  under  him  and  his  immediate  successors,  is  of 
itself  a  proof  of  the  progress  which  Christianity  had  made  in  the 
preceding  period.  It  may  be  added  also,  ‘  that  Maxentius,  the  rival 
of  Constantine,  had  shown  himself  friendly  to  the  Christians. 
Therefore  of  those  who  w'ere  contending  for  worldly  power  and 
empire,  one  actually  favored  and  flattered  them,  and  another  may 
be  suspected  to  have  joined  himself  to  them,  partly  from  considera¬ 
tion  of  interest :  so  considerable  were  they  become,  under  external 
disadvantages  of  all  sorts.’H  This  at  least  is  certain,  that  throughout 
the  whole  transaction  hitherto,  the  great  seemed  to  follow,  not  to 
lead,  the  public  opinion. 

It  may  help  to  convey  to  us  some  notion  of  the  extent  and  progress 
of  Christianity,  or  rather  of  the  character  and  quality  of  many  early 
Christians,  of  their  learning  and  their  labors,  to  notice  the  number 
of  Christian  writers  who  flourished  in  these  ages.  Saint  Jerome’s 


*  Arnob.  in  Gentes,  1.  i.  p.  27.  9.  24.  42.  44.  edit.  Lug.  Bat.  1650. 
t  De  Error.  Profan.  Relig.  c.  xxi.  p.  172,  quoted  by  Lardner,  vol.  viii. 

p.  262. 

1  Jer.  ad  Loct.  ep.  5.  7.  §  Jer.  ep.  8.  ad  Heliod. 

1|  Lardner,  vol.  vii.  p.  380. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  211 

catalogue  contains  sixty-six  writers  within  the  first  three  centuries, 
and  the  first  six  years  of  the  fourth ;  and  fifty-four  between  that 
time  and  his  own,  viz.  a.  d.  392.  Jerome  introduces  his  catalogue 
with  the  following  just  remonstrance : — ‘  Let  those  who  say  the 
church  has  had  no  philosophers,  nor  eloquent  and  learned  men 
observe  who  and  w'hat  they  were  who  founded,  established,  and 
adorned  it:  let  them  cease  to  accuse  our  faith  of  rusticity,  and  con¬ 
fess  their  mistake.’'*'  Of  these  writers,  several,  as  Justin,  Irenteus, 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian,  Origen,  Bardesanes,  Hippolitus, 
Eusebius,  were  voluminous  writers.  Christian  writers  abounded 
particularly  about  the  year  178.  Alexander,  bishop  of  Jerusalem, 
founded  a  library  in  that  city,  a.  d.  212.  Pamphilus,  the  friend  of 
Origen,  founded  a  library  at  Cesarea,  a.  d.  294.  Public  defences 
were  also  set  forth,  by  various  advocates  of  the  religion,  in  the 
course  of  its  first  three  centuries.  Within  one  hundred  years  after 
Christ’s  ascension,  Quadratus  and  Aristides,  whose  works,  except 
some  few  fragments  of  the  first,  are  lost ;  and,  about  twenty  years 
afterward,  Justin  Martyr,  whose  works  remain,  presented  apologies 
for  the  Christian  religion  to  the  Roman  emperors ;  Quadratus  and 
Aristides  to  Adrian,  Justin  to  Antoninus  Pius,  and  a  second  to  Mar¬ 
cus  Antoninus.  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis,  and  Apollinaris,  bishop  of 
Hierapolis,  and  Miltiades,  men  of  great  reputation,  did  the  same  to 
Marcus  Antoninus,  twenty  years  afterward  :t  and  ten  years  after 
this,  Apollonius,  who  suffered  martyrdom  under  the  emperor  Corn- 
modus,  composed  an  apology  for  his  faith,  which  he  read  in  the 
senate,  and  which  was  afterward  published.!  Fourteen  years  after 
the  apology  of  Apollonius,  Tertullian  addressed  the  work  which 
now  remains  under  that  name  to  the  governors  of  provinces  in  the 
Roman  empire ;  and,  about  the  same  time,  Minuci us  Felix  composed 
a  defence  of  the  Christian  religion,  which  is  still  extant ;  and  shortly 
after  the  conclusion  of  this  century,  copious  defences  of  Christianity 
W'ere  published  by  Arnobius  and  Lactantius. 


SECT.  II. 

Refections  upon  the  preceding  Account. 

In  viewing  the  progress  of  Christianity,  our  first  attention  is  due 
to  the  number  of  converts  at  Jerusalem,  immediately  after  its 
Founder’s  death ;  because  this  success  was  a  success  at  the  time, 
and  upon  the  spot,  when  and  w'here  the  chief  part  of  the  history  had 
been  transacted. 

We  are,  in  the  next  place,  called  upon  to  attend  to  the  early 
establishment  of  numerous  Christian  societies  in  Judea  and  Galilee ; 
which  countries  had  been  the  scene  of  Christ’s  miracles  and  minis- 


*  Jer.  Prol.  in  Lib.  de  Scr.  Eccl. 

t  Euseb.  Hist.  lib.  iv.  c.  26.  See  also  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  p.  666. 
j  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  p.  687. 


212  Paleyh  View  of  the 

try,  and  where  the  memory  of  what  had  passed,  and  the  knowledge 
of  what  was  alleged,  must  have  yet  been  fresh  and  certain. 

We  are,  thirdly,  invited  to  recollect  the  success  of  the  apostles 
and  of  their  companions,  at  the  several  places  to  which  they  came, 
both  within  and  without  Judea;  because  it  was  the  credit  given  to 
original  witnesses,  appealing  for  the  truth  of  their  accounts  to  what 
themselves  had  seen  and  heard.  The  effect  also  of  their  preaching 
strongly  confirms  the  truth  of  what  our  history  positively  and  cir¬ 
cumstantially  relates,  that  they  were  able  to  exhibit  to  their  hearers 
supernatural  attestations  of  their  mission. 

We  are,  lastly,  to  consider  the  subsequent  grow’th  and  spread  of 
the  religion,  of  which  we  receive  successive  intimations,  and  satis¬ 
factory,  though  general  and  occasional,  accounts,  until  its  full  and 
final  establishment. 

In  all  these  several  stages,  the  history  is  without  a  parallel :  for 
It  must  be  observed,  that  we  have  not  now  been  tracing  the  pro¬ 
gress,  and  describing  the  prevalency,  of  an  opinion,  founded  upon 
philosophical  or  critical  arguments,  upon  mere  deduction  of  reason, 
or  the  construction  of  ancient  writings  (of  which  kind  are  the  seve¬ 
ral  theories  which  have,  at  different  times,  gained  possession  of  the 
public  mind  in  various  departments  of  science  and  literature  ;  and 
of  one  or  other  of  which  kind  are  the  tenets  also  which  divide  the 
various  sects  of  Christianity) ;  but  that  we  speak  of  a  system,  the 
very  basis  and  postulatum  of  which  was  a  supernatural  character 
ascribed  to  a  particular  person;  of  a  doctrine,  the  truth  w'hereoi 
depends  entirely  upon  the  truth  of  a  matter  of  fact  then  recent. 
‘  To  establish  a  new  religion,  even  amongst  a  few  people,  or  in  one 
single  nation,  is  a  thing  in  itself  exceedingly  difficult.  To  reform 
some  corruptions  which  may  have  spread  in  a  religion,  or  to  make 
new  regulations  in  it,  is  not  perhaps  so  hard,  w^hen  the  main  and 
principal  part  of  that  religion  is  preserved  entire  and  unshaken ;  and 
yet  this  very  often  cannot  be  accomplished  without  an  extraordinary 
concurrence  of  circumstances,  and  may  be  attempted  a  thousand 
times  without  success.  But  to  introduce  a  new  faith,  a  new  way 
of  thinking  and  acting,  and  to  persuade  many  nations  to  quit  the 
religion  in  which  their  ancestors  have  lived  and  died,  which  had 
been  delivered  down  to  them  from  time  immemorial,  to  make  them 
forsake  and  despise  the  deities  which  they  had  been  accustomed  to 
reverence  and  worship ;  this  is  a  work  of  still  greater  difficulty.* 
The  resistance  of  education,  worldly  policy,  and  superstition,  is 
almost  invincible.’ 

If  men,  in  these  days,  be  Christians  in  consequence  of  their  edu¬ 
cation,  in  submission  to  authority,  or  in  compliance  with  fashion,  let 
>i.s  recollect  that  the  very  contrary  of  this,  at  the  beginning,  was  the 
case.  The  first  race  of  Christians,  as  well  as  millions  who  suc¬ 
ceeded  them,  became  such  in  formal  opposition  to  all  these  motives, 
to  the  whole  power  and  strength  of  this  influence.  Every  argu 


*  Jortin’s  Dis.  on  the  Christ.  Rel.  p.  107.  ed.  iv. 


213 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

inent,  therefore,  and  every  instance,  which  sets  forth  the  prejudice 
of  education,  and  the  almost  irresistible  effects  of  that  prejudice 
(and  no  persons  are  more  fond  of  expatiating  upon  this  subject  than 
deistical  writere),  in  fact  confirms  the  evidence  of  Christianity. 

But,  in  order  to  judge  of  the  argument  which  is  drawn  from  the 
early  propagation  of  Christianity,  I  know  no  fairer  way  of  proceed¬ 
ing  than  to  compare  what  we  have  seen  on  the  subject,  with  the 
success  of  Christian  missions  in  modern  ages.  In  the  East  India  mis¬ 
sion,  supported  by  the  Society  for  promoting  Christian  Knowledge, 
we  hear  sometimes  of  thirty,  sometimes  of  forty,  being  baptized  in 
the  course  of  a  year,  and  these  principally  children.  Of  converts 
properly  so  called,  that  is,  of  adults  voluntarily  embracing  Chris¬ 
tianity,  the  number  is  extremely  small.  ‘  Notwithstanding  the  labor 
01  missionaries  for  upwards  of  two  hundred  years,  and  the  estab¬ 
lishments  of  different  Christian  nations  who  support  them,  there  are 
not  tw^elve  thousand  Indian  Christians,  and  those  almost  entirely 
outcasts.’* 

I  lament,  as  much  as  any  man,  the  little  progress  which  Chris¬ 
tianity  has  made  in  these  countries,  and  the  inconsiderable  effect  that 
has  followed  the  labors  of  its  missionaries :  but  I  see  in  it  a  strong 
prooi  of  the  Divine  origin  of  the  religion.  What  had  the  apostles 
to  assist  them  in  propagating  Christianity  which  the  missionaries 
nave  not?  If  piety  and  zeal  had  been  sufficient,  I  doubt  not  but  that 
our  missionaries  possess  these  qualities  in  a  high  degree :  for,  nothing 
except  piety  and  zeal  could  engage  them  in  the  undertaking.  If 
sanctity  of  life  and  manners  was  the  allurement,  the  conduct  of 
these  men  is  unblamable.  If  the  advantage  of  education  and  learn¬ 
ing  be  looked  to,  there  is  not  one  of  the  modern  missionaries,  who  is 
not,  in  this  respect,  superior  to  all  the  apostles :  and  that  not  only 
absolutely,  but,  what  is  of  more  importance,  relatively,  m  comparison, 
that  is,  with  those  amongst  whom  they  exercise  their  office.  If  the 
intrinsic  excellency  of  the  religion,  the  perfection  of  its  morality, 
the  purity  of  its  precepts,  the  eloquence  or  tenderness  or  sublimity 
of  various  parts  of  its  writings,  were  the  recommendations  by  which 
it  made  its  way,  these  remain  the  same.  If  the  character  and  cir¬ 
cumstances,  under  which  the  preachers  were  introduced  to  the 
countries  in  which  they  taught,  be  accouiited  of  importance,  this 
advantage  is  all  on  the  side  of  the  modem  missionaries.  They  come 
from  a  country  and  a  people  to  which  the  Indian  worid  look  up  with 
sentiments  of  deference.  The  apostles  came  forth  amongst  the 
Gentiles  under  no  other  name  than  that  of  Jews,  which  was  pre¬ 
cisely  the  character  they  despised  and  derided.  If  it  be  disgraceful 
m  India  to  become  a  Christian,  it  could  not  be  much  less  so  to  be 
enrolled  amongst  those,  ‘  quos  per  flagitia  invisos,  vulgus  Christianos 
appellabat.’  If  the  religion  which  they  had  to  encounter  be  con¬ 
sidered,  the  difference,  I  apprehend,  will  not  be  great.  The  theology 


*  Sketches  relating  to  the  history,  learning,  and  manners,  of  the  Hin¬ 
doos,  p.  48 ;  quoted  by  Dr.  Robertson;  Hist.  Dis.  concerning  ancient  India, 
p.  236. 


214 


Paley’s  View  of  the 

of  both  was  nearly  the  same :  ‘  what  is  supposed  to  be  performed 
by  the  power  of  Jupiter,  of  Neptune,  of  ^olus,  of  Mars,  of  Venus, 
according  to  the  mythology  of  the  West,  is  ascribed,  in  the  East,  to 
the  agency  of  Agrio  the  god  of  fire,  Varoon  the  god  of  oceans, 
Vayoo  the  god  of  wind,  Cama  the  god  of  love.’* * * §  The  sacred  rites 
of  the  Western  Polytheism  were  gay,  festive,  and  licentious;  the 
rites  of  the  public  religion  in  the  East  partake  of  the  same  charac¬ 
ter,  with  a  more  avowed  indecency.  ‘  In  every  function  performed 
in  the  pagodas,  as  well  as  in  every  public  procession,  it  is  the  office 
of  these  women  (f.  e.  of  women  prepared  by  the  Brahmins  for  the 
purpose),  to  dance  before  the  idol,  and  to  sing  hymns  in  his  praise ; 
and  it  is  difficult  to  say  whether  they  trespass  most  against  decency 
by  the  gestures  they  exhibit,  or  by  the  verses  which  they  recite.  The 
walls  of  the  pagodas  were  covered  with  paintings  in  a  style  no  less 
mdelicate.’t 

On  both  sides  of  the  comparison,  the  popular  religion  had  a  strong 
establishment.  In  ancient  Greece  and  Rome,  it  was  strictly  incor¬ 
porated  with  the  state.  The  magistrate  was  the  priest.  The  highest 
officers  of  government  bore  the  most  distinguished  part  in  the  cele¬ 
bration  of  the  public  rites.  In  India,  a  powerful  and  numerous  cast 
possess  exclusively  the  administration  of  the  established  woi*ship ; 
and  are,  of  consequence,  devoted  to  the  service,  and  attached  to  its 
interest.  In  both,  the  prevailing  mythology  was  destitute  of  any 
proper  evidence :  or  rather,  in  both,  the  origin  of  the  tradition  is  run 
up  into  ages  long  anterior  to  the  existence  of  credible  history,  or  of 
written  language.  The  Indian  chronology  computes  eras  by  millions 
of  years,  and  the  life  of  man  by  thousands  ;t  and  in  these,  or  prior 
to  these,  is  placed  the  history  of  their  divinities.  In  both,  the  es¬ 
tablished  superstition  held  the  same  place  in  the  public  opinion; 
that  is  to  say,  in  both  it  was  credited  by  the  bulk  of  the  people,$ 

*  Baghvat  Geeta,  p.  94,  quoted  by  Dr.  Robertson,  Ind.  Dis.  p.  306. 

t  Others  of  the  deities  of  the  East  are  of  an  austere  and  gloomy  char¬ 
acter,  to  be  propitiated  by  victims,  sometimes  by  human  sacrifices,  and 
by  voluntary  torments  of  the  most  excruciating  kind. — Voyage  de  Gentil, 
vol.  i.  p.  244 — 260.  Preface  to  Code  of  Gentoo  Laws,  p.  57,  quoted  by 
Dr.  Robertson,  p.  320. 

X  ‘  The  Suffec  Jogue,  or  age  of  purity,  is  said  to  have  lasted  three  mil¬ 
lion  two  hundred  thousand  years ;  and  they  hold  that  the  life  of  man 
was  extended  in  that  age  to  one  hundred  thousand  years;  but  there  is  a 
difference  amongst  the  Indian  writers,  of  six  millions  of  years  in  the  com¬ 
putation  of  this  era.’  Ib. 

§  ‘  How  absurd  soever  the  articles  of  faith  may  be,  which  superstition 
has  adopted,  or  how  unhallowed  the  rites  which  it  prescribes,  the  former 
are  received,  in  every  age  and  country,  with  unhesitating  assent,  by  the 
great  body  of  the  people,  and  the  latter  observed  with  scrupulous  exact¬ 
ness.  In  our  reasonings  concerning  opinions  and  practices  which  differ 
widely  from  our  own,  we  are  extremely  apt  to  err.  Having  been  in¬ 
structed  ourselves  in  the  principles  of  a  religion,  worthy  in  every  respect 
of  that  Divine  wisdom  by  which  they  were  dictated,  we  frequently  ex¬ 
press  wonder  at  the  credulity  of  nations,  in  embracing  systems  of  belief 
which  appear  to  us  so  directly  repugnant  to  right  reason;  and  sometimes 
suspect  that  tenets  so  wild  and  extravagant  do  not  really  gain  credit 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  215 

but  by  the  learned  and  philosophical  part  of  the  community,  either 
derided,  or  regarded  by  them  as  only  fit  to  be  upholden  for  the 
sake  of  its  political  uses.* * 

Or  if  it  should  be  allowed,  that  the  ancient  heathens  believed 
in  their  religion  less  generally  than  the  present  Indians  do,  I  am  far 
from  thinking  that  this  circumstance  would  afford  any  facility  to  the 
work  of  the  apostles,  above  that  of  the  modern  missionaries.  To  me 
it  appears,  and  I  think  it  material  to  be  remarked,  that  a  disbelief  of 
the  established  religion  of  their  country  has  no  tendency  to  dispose 
men  for  the  reception  of  another ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  gene¬ 
rates  a  settled  Contempc  of  all  religious  pretensions  whatever. 
General  infidelity  is  the  hardest  soil  which  the  propagators  of  a 
new  religion  can  have  to  work  upon.  Could  a  Methodist  or  Moravian 
promise  himself  a  better  chance  of  success  with  a  French  esprit  fort, 
who  had  been  accustomed  to  laugh  at  the  popery  of  his  country,  than 
with  a  believing  Mahometan  or  Hindoo  ?  Or  are  our  modern  unbe¬ 
lievers  in  Christianity,  for  that  reason,  in  danger  of  becoming  Ma¬ 
hometans  or  Hindoos?  It  does  not  appear  that  the  Jews,  who  had 
a  body  of  historical  evidence  to  offer  for  their  religion,  and  who  at 
that  time  undoubtedly  entertained  and  held  forth  the  expectation  of 
a  future  state,  derived  any  great  advantage,  as  to  the  extension  of 
their  system,  from  the  discredit  into  which  the  popular  religion  had 
fallen  with  many  of  their  heathen  neighbors. 

We  have  particularly  directed  our  observations  to  the  state  and 
progress  of  Christianity  amongst  the  inhabitants  of  India :  but  the 
history  of  the  Christian  mission  in  other  countries,  where  the  effi¬ 
cacy  of  the  mission  is  left  solely  to  the  conviction  wrought  by  the 
preaching  of  strangers,  presents  the  same  idea,  as  the  Indian  mission 
does,  of  the  feebleness  and  inadequacy  of  human  means.  About 
twenty-five  years  ago,  was  published  in  England  a  translation  from 
the  Dutch,  of  a  History  of  Greenland,  and  a  relation  of  the  mission 
for  above  thirty  years  carried  on  in  that  country  by  the  Unitas  Fra- 
trum,  or  Moravians.  Every  part  of  that  relation  confirms  the 
opinion  W'e  have  stated.  Nothing  could  surpass,  or  hardly  equal, 
the  zeal  and  patience  of  the  missionaries.  Yet  their  historian,  in  the 
conclusion  of  his  narrative,  could  find  place  for  no  reflections  more 
encouraging  than  the  fbllow'ing : — ‘  A  person  that  had  knovm  the 
‘  heathen,  that  had  seen  the  little  benefit  from  the  great  pains  hitherto 


with  them.  But  experience  may  satisfy  us,  that  neither  our  wonder  nor 
suspicions  are  well  founded.  No  article  of  the  public  religion  was  called 
in  question  by  those  people  of  ancient  Europe  with  whose  history  we 
are  best  acquainted  ;  and  no  practice,  which  it  enjoined,  appeared  im¬ 
proper  to  them.  On  the  other  hand,  every  opinion  that  tended  to  dimin¬ 
ish  the  reverence  of  men  for  the  gods  of  their  country,  or  to  alienate 
them  from  their  worship,  excited,  among  the  Greeks  and  Bonians,  that 
indignant  zeal  which  is  natural  to  every  people  attached  to  their  religion 
by  a  firm  persuasion  of  its  truth.’  Ind.  Dis.  p,  321. 

*That  the  learned  Brahmins  of  the  East  are  rational  Theists,  and  se¬ 
cretly  reject  the  established  theory,  and  contemn  the  rites  that  were 
founded  upon  them,  or  rather  consider  them  as  contrivances  to  be  sup- 
Dorted  for  their  political  uses,  see  Dr.  Robertson’s  Ind.  Dis.  p.  324 — 334 


216 


Foley’s  View  of  the 

taken  with  them,  and  considered  that  one  after  another  had  aban 
doned  all  hopes  of  the  conversion  of  those  infidels  (and  some  thought 
they  would  never  be  converted,  till  they  saw  miracles  wrought  as  in 
the  apostles’  days,  and  this  the  Greenlanders  expected  and  demanded 
of  their  instructors) ;  one  that  considered  this,  I  say,  would  not  so 
much  wonder  at  the  past  unfruitfulness  of  these  young  beginners,  as 
at  their  stedfast  perseverance  in  the  midst  of  nothing  but  distress,  diffi¬ 
culties,  and  impediments,  internally,  and  externally ;  and  that  they 
never  desponded  of  the  conversion  of  those  poor  creatures  amidst 
all  seeming  impossibilities.”* 

From  the  widely  disproportionate  effects  which  attend  the  preach 
ing  of  modern  missionaries  of  Christianity,  compared  wdth  what  fol¬ 
lowed  the  ministry  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  under  circumstances 
eiiner  alike,  or  not  so  unlike,  as  to  account  for  the  difference,  a  con- 
lusion  is  fairly  drawn,  in  support  of  what  our  histories  deliver  con- 
erning  them,  viz.  that  they  possessed  means  of  conviction,  which 
e  have  not ;  that  they  had  proofs  to  appeal  to,  which  we  want. 


SECT.  III. 

Of  the  Success  of  Mahometanism. 

The  only  event  in  the  history  of  the  human  species,  which  admits 
of  comparison  with  the  propagation  of  Christianity,  is  the  success  of 
Mahometanism.  The  Mahometan  institution  was  rapid  in  its  pro¬ 
gress,  was  recent  in  its  history,  and  was  founded  upon  a  supernatu¬ 
ral  or  prophetic  character  assuined  by  its  author.  In  these  articles, 
the  resemblance  with  Christianity  is  confessed.  But  there  are  points 
of  difference,  which  separate,  we  apprehend,  the  two  cases  entirely. 

I.  Mahomet  did  not  found  his  pretensions  upon  miracles,  properly 
so  called;  that  is,  upon  proofs  of  supernatural  agency,  capable  of 
being  known  and  attested  by  others.  Christians  are  warranted  in 
this  assertion  by  the  evidence  of  the  Koran,  in  which  Mahomet  not 
only  does  hot  affect  the  power  of  working  miracles,  but  expressly 
disclaims  it.  The  following  passages  of  that  book  furnish  direct 
proofs  of  the  truth  of  what  we  allege:— ‘The  infidels  say.  Unless  a 
sign  be  sent  down  unto  him  from  his  lord,  we  will  not  believe ;  thou 
art  a  preacher  only.’t  Again ;  ‘  Nothing  hindered  us  from  sending 
thee  with  miracles,  except  that  the  former  nations  have  charged 
them  with  imposture.’t  And  lastly ;  ‘  They  say,  unless  a  sign  be 
sent  down  unto  him  from  his  lord,  we  will  not  believe;  Answer; 
Signs  are  in  the  power  of  God  alone,  and  I  am  no  more  than  a  pub¬ 
lic  preacher.  Is  it  not  sufficient  for  them,  that  we  have  sent  down 
unto  them  the  book  of  the  Koran  to  be  read  unto  them?’$  Besides 
these  acknowledghients,  I  have  observed  thirteen  distinct  places,  in 


*  History  of  Greenland,  vol.  ii.  p.  376. 
t  Sale’s  Koran,  c.  xiii.  p.  201.  ed.  quarto. 

I  Ch.  xvii.  p.  232.  §  Ch.  xxix.  p.  328.  ed.  quarto. 


Evidences  of  Christianity-  SIT* 

which  Mahomet  puts  the  objection  (unless  a  sign,  &c.)  into  the  mouth 
of  the  unbeliever,  in  not  one  of  which  does  he  allege  a  miracle  in 
reply.  His  answer  is,  ‘  that  God  giveth  the  power  of  working  mira¬ 
cles,  w  hen  and  to  whom  he  pleaseth ‘  that  if  he  should  work 
miracles,  they  would  not  believe  ;’t  ‘  that  they  had  before  rejected 
Moses,  and  the  Prophets,  who  wrought  miracles  ;’t  ‘  that  the  Koran 
itself  was  a  miracle.’^ 

The  only  place  in  the  Koran  in  which  it  can  be  pretended  that  a 
sensible  miracle  is  referred  to  (for  I  dc  not  allow  the  secret  visita¬ 
tions  of  Gabriel,  the  night  journey  of  Mahomet  to  heaven,  or  the 
presence  in  battle  of  invisible  hosts  of  angels,  to  deserve  the  name 
of  sensible  miracles),  is  the  beginning  of  the  fifty-fourth  chapter. 
The  words  are  these:— ‘The  hour  of  judgment  approacheth,  and  fAe 
moon  haOi  been  split  in  sunder ;  but  if  the  unbelievers  see  a  sign, 
they  turn  aside,  saying.  This  is  a  powerful  charm.’  The  Mahometan 
expositors  disagree  in  their  interpretation  of  this  passage;  some 
explaining  it  to  be  a  mention  of  the  splitting  of  the  moon,  as  one  of 
the  future  signs  of  the  approach  of  the  day  of  judgment;  others 
referring  it  to  a  miraculous  appearance  which  had  then  taken  place.H 
It  seems  to  me  not  improbable,  that  Mahomet  might  have  taken 
advantage  of  some  extraordinary  halo,  or  other  unusual  appearance 
of  the  moon,  which  had  happened  about  tins  time  ;  and  'which  sup¬ 
plied  a  foundation  both  for  this  passage,  and  for  the  story  which  in 
after  times  had  been  raised  out  of  it.  r  •  c 

After  this  more  than  silence,  after  these  authentic  confessions  of 
the  Koran,  we  are  not  to  be  moved  with  miraculous  stories  related 
of  Mahomet  by  Abulfeda,  who  wrote  his_  life,  about  six  hundred 
years  after  his  death ;  or  which  are  found  in  the  legend  of  Al-Jan- 
nabi,  who  came  two  hundred  years  later.lT  On  the  contrary,  from 
comparing  what  Mahomet  himself  w'rote  and  said,  with  what  was 
afterward  reported  of  him  by  his  follow’ers,  the  plain  and  fair  con¬ 
clusion  is,  that  when  the  religion  w’as  established  by  conquest,  then, 
and  not  till  then,  came  out  the  stories  of  his  miracles. 

Now  this  difference  alone  constitutes,  in  my  opinion,  a  bar  to  all 
reasoning  from  one  case  to  the  other.  The  success  of  a  religion 
founded  upon  a  miraculous  history,  shows  the  credit  which  was 
given  to  the  history ;  and  this  credit,  under  the  circumstances  in 
which  it  w’as  given,  i.  e.  by  persons  capable  of  knowing  the  truth, 
and  interested  to  inquire  after  it,  is  evidence  of  the  reality  of  the 
history,  and,  by  consequence,  of  the  truth  of  the  religion.  Where  a 
miraculous  history  is  not  alleged,  no  part  of  this  argument  can  be 
applied.  We  admit,  that  multitudes  acknowledge  the  pretensions 

*  Sale's  Koran,  ch.  v.  X.  xiii.  twice.  t  0.  vi. 

t  Ch.  iii.  xxi.  xxviii.  §  Ch.  xvi.  ||  Vide  Sale,  in  loc. 

IT  It  does  not,  I  think,  appear  that  these  historians  had  any  written 
accounts  to  appeal  to,  more  ancient  than  the  Sonnah,  which  was  a  col- 
.ection  of  traditions  made  by  order  of  the  caliphs  two  hundred  years  after 
Mahomet’s  death.  Mahomet  died  A.  D.  632;  Al-Bochari,  one  of  the  six 
doctors  who  compiled  the  Sonnah,  was  born  A.  D.  809;  died  in  869.  Pri. 
deaux’s  Life  of  Mahomet,  p.  192.  ed.  7th. 


218  Paleyh  Vieio  of  the 

of  Mahomet;  but,  these  pretensions  being  destitute  of  miraculous 
evidence,  W'e  know  that  the  grounds  upon  which  they  were  ac¬ 
knowledged,  could  not  be  secure  grounds  of  persuasion  to  his  fol¬ 
lowers,  nor  their  example  any  authority  to  us.  Admit  the  whole  of 
Mahomet’s  authentic  history,  so  far  as  it  was  oi  a  nature  capable  of 
being  known  or  witnessed  by  others,  to  be  true  (which  is  certainly 
to  admit  all  that  the  reception  of  the  religion  can  be  brought  to 
prove),  and  Mahomet  might  still  be  an  impostor,  or  enthusiast,  or  a 
union  of  both.  Admit  to  be  true  almost  any  part  of  Christ’s  history, 
of  that,  I  mean,  which  was  public,  and  within  the  cognizance  of  his 
followers,  and  he  must  have  come  from  God.  Where  matter  of  fact 
is  not  in  question,  where  miracles  are  not  alleged,  I  do  not  see  that 
the  progress  of  a  religion  is  a  better  argument  of  its  truth,  than  the 
prevalency  of  any  system  of  opinions  in  natural  religion,  morality 
or  physics,  is  a  proof  of  the  truth  of  those  opinions.  And  we  know 
that  this  sort  of  argument  is  inadmissible  in  any  branch  of  philoso¬ 
phy  whatever.  . 

But  it  will  be  said.  If  one  religion  could  make  its  way  vvithou 
miracles,  why  might  not  another  ?  To  which  I  reply,  first,  that  this 
is  not  the  question ;  the  proper  question  is  not,  whether  a  religioui 
institution  could  be  set  up  without  miracles,  but  whether  a  rehgior 
or  a  change  of  religion,  founding  itself  in  miracles,  could  succeec 
without  any  reality  to  rest  upon  ?  I  apprehend  these  two  cases  tc 
be  very  different ;  and  I  apprehend  Mahomet’s  not  taking  thi: 
course,  to  be  one  proof,  amongst  others,  that  the  thing  is  difficult,  li 
not  impossible,  to  be  accomplished :  certainly  it  was  not  from  ai 
unconsciousness  of  the  value  and  importance  of  miraculous  evi 
dence  :  for  it  is  very  observable,  that  in  the  same  volume,  and  sorne 
times  in  the  same  chapters,  in  which  Mahomet  so  repeatedly  dis 
claims  the  power  of  working  miracles  himself  he  is  incessantb 
referring  to  the  miracles  of  ;;)receding  prophets.  One  would  imagine 
to  hear  some  men  talk,  or  to  read  some  books,  that  the  setting  up  oi 
a  religion  by  dint  of  miraculous  pretences  was  a  thing  of  every  day’ 
experience;  whereas,  I  believe,  that,  except  the  Jewish  and  Chris 
tian  religion,  there  is  no  tolerably  well-authenticated  account  of  an] 
such  thing  having  been  accomplished.  j 

II.  The  establishment  of  Mahomet’s  religion  was  effected  b] 
causes  which  in  no  degree  appertained  to  the  origin  of  Christianitj, 
During  the  first  twelve  years  of  his  mission,  Mahomet  had  recoursi 
only  to  persuasion.  This  is  allowed.  And  there  is  sufficient  reasoi 
from  the  effect  to  believe,  thaf  if  he  had  confined  himself  to  thi 
mode  of  propagating  his  religion,  we  of  the  present  day  should  neve 
have  heard  either  of  him  or  it.  ‘  Three  years  were  silently  employe, 
in  the  conversion  of  fourteen  proselytes.  For  ten  years,  the  rehgioi 
advanced  with  a  slow  and  painful  progress,  within  the  walls  o 
Mecca.  The  number  of  proselytes  in  the  seventh  year  of  his  mn 
sion  may  be  estimated  by  the  absence  of  eiglity-tlivee  men  and 
teen  women,  who  retired  to  Ethiopia.’*'^  Yet  this  progress,  such  a 


*  Gibbon’s  Hist.  vol.  ix.  p.  244,  &c.;  ed.  Dub. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  219 

it  was,  appears  to  have  been  aided  by  some  very  important  advan¬ 
tages  which  Mahomet  found  in  his  situation,  in  his  mode  of  conduct¬ 
ing  his  design,  and  in  his  doctrine. 

1.  Mahomet  was  the  grandson  of  the  most  powerful  and  honor 
able  family  in  Mecca :  and  although  the  early  death  of  his  father 
had  not  left  him  a  patrimony  suitable  to  his  birth,  he  had,  long 
before  the  commencement  of  his  mission,  repaired  this  deficiency  by 
an  opulent  marriage.  A  person  considerable  by  his  wealth,  of  nigh 
descent,  and  nearly  allied  to  the  chiefs  of  his  country,  taldng  upon 
himself  the  character  of  a  religious  teacher,  would  not  fail  of  at¬ 
tracting  attention  and  followers. 

2.  Mahomet  conducted  his  design,  in  the  outset  especially,  with 
great  art  and  prudence.  He  conducted  it  as  a  politician  would  con¬ 
duct  a  plot.  His  first  application  was  to  his  own  family.  This  gained 
him  his  wife’s  uncle,  a  considerable  person  in  Mecca,  together  with 
his  cousin  Ali,  afterward  the  celebrated  Caliph,  then  a  youth  of 
great  expectation,  and  even  already  distinguished  by  his  attachment, 
impetuosity,  and  courage.*  He  next  expressed  himself  to  Abu  Beer, 
a  man  amongst  the  first  of  the  Koreish  in  w^ealth  and  influence.  The 
interest  and  example  of  Abu  Beer,  drew  in  five  other  principtil  per¬ 
sons  in  Mecca ;  whose  solicitations  prevailed  upon  five  more  of  the 
same  rank.  This  was  the  w'ork  of  three  years ;  during  which  time, 
every  thing  was  transacted  in  secret.  Upon  the  strength  of  these 
allies,  and  under  the  powerful  protection  of  his  family,  who,  how¬ 
ever  some  of  them  might  disapprove  his  enterprise,  or  deride  his 

•  pretensions,  would  not  suffer  the  orphan  of  their  house,  the  relic  of 
their  favorite  brother,  to  be  insulted ;  Mahomet  now  commenced 
his  public  preaching.  And  the  advance  which  he  made  during  the 
nine  or  ten  remaining  years  of  his  peaceable  ministry,  was  by  no 
means  greater  than  what,  with  these  advantages,  and  with  the  addi¬ 
tional  and  singular  circumstance  of  there  being  no  esfablished  reli¬ 
gion  at  Mecca  at  that  time  to  contend  with,  might  reasonably  have 
been  expected.  How  soon  his  primitive  adherents  were  let  into 
the  secret  of  his  views  of  empire,  or  in  what  stage  of  his  under¬ 
taking  these  views  first  opened  themselves  to  his  own  mind,  it  is  not 
now  so  easy  to  determine.  The  event  however  was,  that  these  his 
first  proselytes  all  ultimately  attained  to  riches  and  honors,  to  the 
command  of  armies,  and  the  government  of  kingdoms.t 

3.  The  Arabs  deduced  their  descent  from  Abraham  through  the 
line  of  Ishmael.  The  inhabitants  of  Mecca,  in  common  probably 
with  the  other  Arabian  tribes,  acknowledged,  as,  I  think,  may 
clearly  be  collected  from  the  Koran,  one  supreme  Deity,  but  had 
.associated  with  him  many  objects  of  idolatrous  worship.  The  great 

*  Of  which  Mr.  Gibbon  has  preserved  the  following  specimen  : — ‘When 
Mahomet  called  out  in  an  assembly  of  his  family,  Who  among  you  will 
be  my  companion  and  ray  vizir?  Ali,  then  only  in  the  fourteenth  year 
of  his  age,  suddenly  replied,  O  prophet!  I  am  the  man;— whosoever  rises 
against  thee,  I  will  dash  out  his  teeth,  tear  out  his  eyes,  break  his  legs, 
rip  up  his  belly.  O  prophet!  I  w  ill  be  thy  vizir  over  them.’  Vol.  ix.  p.  245, 

t  Gibbon,  vol.  ix.  p.  244. 


220  Foley's  Vieio  of  the 

doctrine  with  which  Mahomet  set  out,  was  the  strict  and  exclusive 
unity  of  God.  Abraham,  he  told  them,  their  illustrious  ancestor  *, 
Ishmael,  the  father  of  their  nation ;  Moses,  the  lawgiver  of  the 
Jews ;  and  Jesus,  the  author  of  Christianity ;  had  all  asserted  the, 
same  thing  ;  that  their  followers  had  universally  corrupted  the  truth, 
and  that  he  was  now-  commissioned  to  restore  it  to  the  world.  Was 
it  to  be  wondered  at,  that  a  doctrine  so  specious,  and  authorized  by 
names,  some  or  other  of  which  were  holden  in  the  highest  venera¬ 
tion  by  eveiy  description  of  his  hearers,  should,  in  the  hands  of  a 
popular  missionary,  prevail  to  the  extent  to  which  Mahomet  suc¬ 
ceeded  by  his  pacific  ministry  ? 

4.  Of  the  institution  which  Mahomet  joined  with  this  fundamen¬ 
tal  doctrine,  and  of  the  Koran  in  which  that  institution  is  delivered, 
we  discover,  I  think,  two  purposes  that  pervade  the  whole,  viz.  to 
make  converts,  and  to  make  his  converts  soldiers.  The  following 
particulars,  amongst  others,  may  be  considered  as  pretty  evident 
indications  of  these  designs  : 

1.  When  Mahomet  began  to  preach,  his  address  to  the  Jews,  to 
the  Christians,  and  to  the  Pagan  Arabs,  was,  that  the  religion 
which  he  taught,  was  no  other  than  what  had  been  originally  their 
owui. — ‘  We  believe  in  God,  and  that  which  hath  been  sent  down 
unto  us,  and  that  which  hath  been  sent  down  unto  Abraham,  and 
Ishmael,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  the  Tribes,  and  that  which  was 
delivered  unto  Moses  and  Jesus,  and  that  which  was  delivered  unto 
the  prophets  from  their  Lord :  we  make  no  distinction  between  any 
of  them.’^  ‘He  hath  ordained  you  the  religion  which  he  com¬ 
manded  Noah,  and  which  we  have  revealed  unto  thee,  O  Moham¬ 
med,  and  which  w'e  commanded  Abraham,  Moses,  and  Jesus,  say¬ 
ing,  Observe  this  religion,  and  be  not  divided  therein.’!  ‘  He  hath 
chosen  you,  and  hath  not  imposed  on  you  any  difficulty  in  the 
religion  which  he  hath  given  you,  the  religion  of  your  father  Abra¬ 
ham.’! 

2.  The  author  of  the  Koran  never  ceases  from  describing  the  fu¬ 
ture  anguish  of  unbelievers,  their  despair,  regret,  penitence,  and 
torment.  It  is  the  point  which  he  labors  above  all  others.  And 
these  descriptions  are  conceived  in  terms  which  will  appear  in  no 
small  degree  impressive,  even  to  the  modern  reader  of  an  English 
translation.  Doubtless  they  would  operate  with  much  greater  force 
upon  the  minds  of  those  to  whom  they  were  immediately  directed. 
The  terror  which  they  seem  well  calculated  to  inspire,  W’ould  be  to 
many  tempers  a  powerful  application. 

3.  On  the  other  hand  ;  his  voluptuous  paradise  ;  his  robes  of  silk, 
his  palaces  of  marble,  his  rivers  and  shades,  his  groves  and  couches, 
his  wines,  liis  dainties ;  and  above  all,  his  seventy-two  virgins  as¬ 
signed  to  each  of  the  faithful,  of  resplendent  beauty  and  eternal 
youth ;  intoxicated  the  imaginations,  and  seized  the  passions  of  his 
Eastern  followers. 

4.  But  Mahomet’s  highest  heaven  was  reserved  for  those  who 


*  Sale’s  Koran,  c.  ii.  p.  17  t  Ib.  c.  xlii.  p.  393.  J  Ib.  c.  xxii.  p.  281. 


221 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

fought  his  battles,  or  expended  their  fortunes  in  his  cause. — ‘  Those 
believers  who  still  sit  at  home,  not  having  any  hurt,  and  those  who 
employ  their  fortunes  and  their  persons  for  the  religion  of  God,  shall 
not  be  held  equal.  God  hath  preferred  those  who  employ  their 
fortunes  and  their  persons  in  that  cause,  to  a  degree  above  those 
who  sit  at  home.  God  had  indeed  promised  every  one  Paradise ; 
but  God  had  preferred  those  who  fight  for  the  faith  before  those 
who  sit  still,  by  adding  unto  them  a  great  reward ;  by  degree  of 
honor  conferred  upon  them  from  him,  and  by  granting  them  for¬ 
giveness  and  mercy.’*  Again ;  ‘  Do  ye  reckon  the  giving  drink  to 
the  pilgrims,  and  the  visiting  of  the  holy  temple,  to  be  actions  as 
meritorious  as  those  performed  by  him  who  believeth  in  God  and 
the  last  day,  auA  fighteth  for  the  religion  of  God  1  They  shall  not  be 
held  equal  with  God. — They  who  have  believed  and  fled  their 
country,  and  employed  their  substance  and  their  persons  in  the  de¬ 
fence  of  God’s  true  religion,  shall  be  in  the  highest  degree  of  honor 
with  God ;  and  these  are  they  who  shall  be  happy.  The  Lord 
sendeth  them  good  tidings  of  mercy  from  him,  and  good  will,  and 
of  gardens  wherein  they  shall  enjoy  lasting  pleasures.  They  shall 
continue  therein  for  ever;  for  with  God  is  a  great  reward.’t  And 
once  more ;  ‘Verily  God  hath  purchased  of  the  true  believers  their 
souls  and  their  substance,  promising  them  the  enjoyment  of  Para¬ 
dise,  on  condition  that  they  fight  for  the  cause  of  God ;  whether  they 
slay  or  be  slain,  the  promise  for  the  same  is  assuredly  due  by  the 
Law  and  the  Gospel  and  the  Koran.’!  § 

5.  His  doctrine  of  predestination  was  applicable,  and  was  applied 
by  him,  to  the  same  purpose  of  fortifying  and  of  exalting  the  courage 
of  his  adherents. — ‘If  any  thing  of  the  matter  had  happened  unto 
us,  we  had  not  been  slain  here.  Answer ;  If  ye  had  been  in  your 
houses,  verily  they  w'ould  have  gone  forth  to  fight,  whose  slaughter 
was  decreed  to  the  places  where  they  died.’H 

6.  In  warm  regions,  the  appetite  of  the  sexes  is  ardent,  the  pas¬ 
sion  for  inebriating  liquors  moderate.  In  compliance  with  this 
distinction,  although  Mahomet  laid  a  restraint  upon  the  drinking  of 
wine,  in  the  use  of  women  he  allowed  an  almost  unbounded  indul¬ 
gence.  Four  wives,  wdth  the  liberty  of  changing  them  at  pleasure,ir 
together  with  the  persons  of  all  his  captives,* § **  was  an  irresistible 
bribe  to  an  Arabian  warrior.  ‘  God  is  minded,  (says  he,  speaking 
of  this  very  subject)  to  make  his  religion  light  unto  you;  for  man 
was  created  weak.’  How  different  this  from  the  unaccommodating 
purity  of  the  Gospel !  How  would  Mahomet  have  succeeded  with 


*  Sale’s  Koran,  c.  iv.  p.  7.3.  f  Ib.  c.  ix.  p.  151.  J  Ib.  c.  ix.  p.  164. 

§  ‘  Tlie  sword  (saitli  Mahomet)  is  the  key  of  heaven  and  of  hell ;  a  drop 
of  blood  shed  in  the  cause  of  God,  a  night  spent  in  arms,  is  of  more  avail 
than  two  months’  fasting  or  prayer.  Whosoever  falls  in  battle,  his 
sins  are  forgiven  at  the  day  of  judgment ;  his  wounds  shall  be  resplendent 
as  vermilion,  and  odoriferous  as  musk  ;  and  the  loss  of  his  limbs  shall  be 
supplied  by  the  wings  of  angels  and  cherubims.’  Gibbon,  vol.  ix.  256. 

U  Sale’s  Koran,  c.  iii.  p.  54.  IF  Ib.  c.  iv.  p.  6.3.  **  Gibb^'f  vol-  ix.  x  225b 


222 


Paley's  View  of  the 

the  Christian  lesson  in  his  mouth, — ‘Whosoever  looketh  upon  a 
woman  to  lust  after  her,  hath  committed  adultery  with  her  already 
in  his  heart  V  It  must  be  added,  that  Mahomet  did  not  enter  upon 
the  prohibition  of  wine,  till  the  fourth  year  of  the  Hegira,  or  seven¬ 
teenth  of  his  mission,* * * §  when  his  military  successes  had  completely 
established  his  authority.  The  same  observation  holds  of  the  fast 
of  the  Ramadan,!  and  of  the  most  laborious  part  of  his  institution, 
the  pilgrimage  to  Mecca.t 

What  has  hitherto  been  collected  from  the  records  of  the  Mussul¬ 
man  history,  relates  to  the  twelve  or  thirteen  years  of  Mahomet’s 
peaceable  preaching ;  which  part  alone  of  his  life  and  enterprise 
admits  of  the  smallest  comparison  with  the  origin  of  Christianity. 
A  new  scene  is  now  unfolded.  The  city  of  Medina,  distant  about 
ten  days’  journey  from  Mecca,  was  at  that  time  distracted  by  the 
hereciitary  contentions  of  two  hostile  tribes.  These  feuds  were  ex¬ 
asperated  by  the  mutual  persecutions  of  the  Jews  and  Christians, 
and  of  the  different  Christian  sects  by  which  the  city  was  inhabited.^ 
The  religion  of  Mahomet  presented,  in  some  measure,  a  point  of 
union  or  compromise  to  these  divided  opinions.  It  embraced  the 
principles  which  were  common  to  them  all.  Each  party  saw  in  it 
an  honorable  acknowledgment  of  the  fundamental  truth  of  their 
own  system.  To  the  Pagan  Arab,  somewhat  imbued  with  the  senti¬ 
ments  and  knowledge  of  his  Jewish  or  Christian  fellow-citizen,  it 
offered  no  offensive,  or  very  improbable  theology.  This  recommenda¬ 
tion  procured  to  Mohometanism  a  more  favorable  reception  at  Me¬ 
dina,  than  its  author  had  been  able,  by  twelve  years’  painful  en¬ 
deavors,  to  obtain  for  it  at  Mecca.  Yet,  after  all,  the  progress  of  the 
religion  was  inconsiderable.  His  missionary  could  only  collect 
a  congregation  of  forty  persons.!!  It  was  not  a  religious,  but  a  politi¬ 
cal  association,  which  ultimately  introduced  Mahomet  into  Medina. 
Harassed  as  it  should  seem,  and  disgusted  by  the  long  continuance 
of  factions  and  disputes,  the  inhabitants  of  that  city  saw  in  the  ad¬ 
mission  of  the  prophet’s  authority,  a  rest  from  the  miseries  which 
they  had  suffered,  and  a  suppression  of  the  violence  and  fury  which 
they  had  learned  to  condemn.  After  an  embassy,  therefore,  com¬ 
posed  of  believers  and  unbelievers,!!  and  of  persons  of  both  tribes, 
with  whom  a  treaty  was  concluded  of  strict  alliance  and  support^ 
Mahomet  made  his  public  entry,  and  was  received  as  the  sovereign 
of  Medina. 

From  this  time,  or  soon  after  this  time,  the  impostor  changed  his 
language  and  his  conduct.  Having  now  a  town  at  his  command, 
where  to  arm  his  party,  and  to  head  them  with  security,  he  enters 
upon  new.  counsels.  He  now  pretends  that  a  divine  commission  is 
given  him  to  attack  the.  infidels,  to  destroy  idolatiy,  and  to  set  up  the 

*  Mod.  Univ.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  126.  t  bJ-  P-  H-- 

I  This  latter,  however,  already  prevailed  amongst  the  Arabs,  and  had 
grown  out  of  their  excessive  veneration  for  the  Caaba.  Mahomet’s  law, 

in  this  respect,  was  rather  a  compliance  than  an  innovation. — Sale’s 
Prelim.  Disc.  p.  122. 

§  Mod.  Univ.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  100.  ||  Ib.  p.  85. 


*T-  Ibid 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 


223 


true  faith  by  the  s\vord.=^  An  early  victory  over  a  very  supenor 
force  achieved  by  conduct  and  bravery,  established  the  renown  ot 
his  arms,  and  of  his  personal  character.!  Every  year  after  this  was 
marked  by  battles  or  assassinations.  The  nature  and  activity  oi  Ma¬ 
homet’s  future  exertions  may  be  estimated  from  the  computation, 
that,  in  the  nine  following  years  of  his  life,  he  commanded  his  army 
in  person  in  eight  general  engagements,!  and  undertook,  by  himseli 
or  his  lieutenants,  fifty  military  enterprises.  ,  n/r 

From  this  time  we  have  nothing  left  to  account  for,  but  that  M;^ 
hornet  should  collect  an  army,  that  his  army  should  conquer,  and 
that  his  religion  should  proceed  together  with  his  conquests.  1  he 
ordinary  experience  of  human  affairs,  leaves  us  little  to  wonder  at, 
in  any  of  these  effects :  and  they  were  likewise  each  assisted  by 
peculiar  facilities.  From  all  sides,  the  roving  Arabs  crowded  round 
the  standard  of  religion  and  plunder,  of  freedom  and  victory,  ot 
arms  and  rapine.  Besides  the  highly  painted  joys  of  a  carnal  para¬ 
dise,  Mahomet  rewarded  his  followers  in  this  world  with  a  liberal 
division  of  the  spoils,  and  with  the  persons  of  their  female  captives.^ 
The  condition  of  Arabia,  occupied  by  small  independent  tribes,  ex¬ 
posed  it  to  the  impression,  and  yielded  to  the  progress,  ol  a  11^ 
and  resolute  army.  After  the  reduction  of  his  native  peninsula,  the 
weakness  also  of  the  Roman  provinces  on  the  north  and  the  west, 
as  well  as  the  distracted  state  of  the  Persian  empire  on  the  east, 
facilitated  the  successful  invasion  of  neighboring  countrms.  ihat 
Mahomet’s  conquests  should  carry  his  religion  along  with  them,  will 
excite  little  surprise,  when  we  know  the  conditions  which  he  pro¬ 
posed  to  the  vanquished.  Death  or  conversion  was  tlm  only  choice 
offered  to  idolaters.  ‘  Strike  off  their  heads !  strike  off  all  the  ends 
of  their  fingers  !  ll  kill  the  idolaters  wheresoever  ye  shall  find  them ! 

To  the  Jews  and  Christians  was  left  the  somewhat  milder  alterna¬ 
tive  of  subjection  and  tribute,  if  they  persisted  in  their  own  reli- 
gion,  or  of  an  equal  participation  in  the  rights  and  liberties,  the 
honors  and  privileges,  of  the  faithful,  if  they  embraced  the  religion 
of  their  conquerors.  ‘Ye  Christian  dogs,  you  know  your  option,  the 
Koran,  the  tribute,  or  the  sword.’* **  The  corrupted  state  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  the  seventh  century,  and  the  contentions  of  its  sects,  un 
happily  so  fell  in  with  men’s  care  of  their  safety,  or  their  fortu^s, 
as  to  induce  many  to  forsake  its  profession.  Add  to  all  whi^,  that 
Mahomet’s  victories  not  only  operated  by  the  natural  ^ect  ot 
conquest,  but  that  they  were  constantly  represented,  both  to  his 
friends  and  enemies,  as  divine  declarations  in  his  favor.  Success 
was  evidence.  Prosperity  carried  with  it,  not  only  influence,  but 
proof  ‘  Ye  have  already  (says  he,  after  the  tettle  of  Bedr)  had  a 
miracle  shown  you,  in  two  armies  which  attacked  each  other ;  o^^ 
army  fought  for  God’s  true  religion,  but  the  other  were  infidels,  tt 


*  Mod  Univ.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  88. 

I  Mod.  Univ.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  255. 

II  Sale’s  Koran,  c.  viii.  p.  140. 

**  Gibbon,  vol.  ix.  p.  337. 


t  Viet,  of  Bedr,  ib.  p.  106. 

§  Gibbon,  vol.  ix.  p.  255. 

IT  Ib.  c.  ix.  p.  149. 

tt  Sale’s  Koran,  c.  iii.  p.  36. 


224 


Paley's  View  of  the 

Again ;  ‘  Ye  slew  not  those  who  were  slain  at  Bedr,  but  God  slew 
them. — If  ye  desire  a  decision  of  the  matter  between  us,  now  hath 
a  decision  come  unto  you.’"'' 

Many  more  passages  might  be  collected  out  of  the  Koran  to  the 
same  effect.  But  they  are  unnecessary.  The  success  of  Mahome¬ 
tanism  during  this,  and  indeed,  every  future  period  of  its  history, 
bears  so  little  resemblance  to  the  early  propagation  of  Christianity, 
that  no  inference  whatever  can  justly  be  drawn  from  it  to  the  pre¬ 
judice  of  the  Christian  argument.  For,  what  are  we  comparing?  A 
Galilean  peasant  accompanied  by  a  few  fishermen,  with  a  conqueror 
at  the  head  of  his  army.  We  compare  Jesus,  without  force,  without 
power,  without  support,  without  one  external  circumstance  of  at¬ 
traction  or  influence,  prevailing  against  the  prejudices,  the  learning, 
the  hierarchy,  of  his  country ;  against  the  ancient  religious  opinions, 
he  pompous  religious  rites,  the  philosophy,  the  wisdom,  the  au¬ 
thority  of  the  Roman  empire,  in  thp  most  polished  and  enlightened 
period  of  its  existence ;  with  Mahomet  making  his  way  amongst 
Arabs ;  collecting  followers  in  the  midst  of  conquests  and  triumphs, 
in  the  darkest  ages  and  countries  of  the  world,  and  when  success  in 
arms  not  only  operated  by  that  command  of  men’s  wills  and  persons 
which  attends  prosperous  undertakings,  but  was  considered  as  a 
sure  testimony  of  divine  approbation.  That  multitudes,  persuaded 
by  this  argument,  should  join  the  train  of  a  victorious  chief ;  that 
Still  greater  multitudes  should,  without  any  argument,  bow  down 
before  irresistible  power ;  is  a  conduct  in  which  w  e  cannot  see  much 
to  surprise  us ;  in  which  we  can  see  nothing  that  resembles  the  causes 
by  which  the  establishment  of  Christianity  was  effected. 

The  success,  therefore,  of  Mahometanism,  stands  not  in  the  way 
of  this  important  conclusion ;  that  the  propagation  of  Christianity 
in  the  manner  and  under  the  circumstances  in  which  it  was  propa¬ 
gated,  is  a  unique  in  the  history  of  the  species.  A  Jewish  peasant 
overthrew  the  religion  of  the  world. 

I  have,  nevertheless,  placed  the  prevalency  of  the  religion 
amongst  the  auxiliary  arguments  of  its  truth ;  because,  wfoether  it 
had  prevailed  or  not,  or  whether  its  prevalency  can  or  cannot  be  a'c- 
counted  for,  the  direct  argument  remains  still.  It  is  still  true  that  a 
great  number  of  men  upon  the  spot,  personally  connected  with  the 
history  and  with  the  author  of  the  religion,  were  induced  by  wfoat 
they  heard,  and  saw,  and  knew,  not  only  to  change  their  former 
opinions,  but  to  give  up  their  time,  and  sacrifice  their  ease,  to  tra- 
verse  seas  and  kingdoms  without  rest  and  without  w^eariness,  to 
commit  themselves  to  extreme  dangers,  to  undertake  incessant  toils, 
to  undergo  grievous  sufferings,  and  all  this,  solely  in  consequence, 
and  in  support,  of  their  belief  of  facts,  which,  if  true,  establish  the 
truth  of  the  religion,  which,  if  false,  they  must  have  known  to  be  so 


*  Sale’s  Koran,  c.  viii.  p.  141. 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

PART  III. 


225 


A  BRIEF  CONSIDERATION  OF  SOME  POPULAR  OBJEC¬ 
TIONS. 


CHAP.  I. 

The  Discrepancies  between  the  several  Gospels. 

I  KNOW  not  a  more  rash  or  unphilosophical  conduct  of  the  under¬ 
standing,  than  to  reject  the  substance  of  a  story,  by  reason  of  some 
diversity  in  the  circumstances  with  which  it  is  related.  The  usual 
character  of  human  testimony  is  substantial  truth  under  circumstan¬ 
tial  variety.  This  is  what  the  daily  experience  of  courts  of  justice 
teaches.  When  accounts  of  a  transaction  come  from  the  mouths 
of  different  witnesses,  it  is  seldom  that  it  is  not  possible  to  pick  out 
apparent  or  real  inconsistencies  between  them.  These  inconsisten¬ 
cies  are  studiously  displayed  by  an  adverse  pleader,  but  oftentimes 
with  little  impression  upon  the  minds  of  the  judges.  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  a  close  and  minute  agreement  induces  the  suspicion  of  con¬ 
federacy  and  fraud.  When  written  histories  touch  upon  the  same 
scenes  of  action,  the  comparison  almost  always  aflbrds  ground  for  a 
like  reflection.  Numerous,  and  sometimes  important,  variations 
present  themselves  ;  not  seldom  also,  absolute  and  final  contradic¬ 
tions  ;  yet  neither  one  nor  the  other,  are  deemed  sufficient  to  shake 
the  credibility  of  the  main  fact.  The  embassy  of  the  Jews  to  depre¬ 
cate  the  execution  of  Claudian’s  order  to  place  his  statue  in  their 
temple,  Philo  places  in  harvest,  Josephus  in  seed-time ;  both  con¬ 
temporary  writers.  No  reader  is  led  by  this  inconsistency  to  doubt, 
whether  such  an  embassy  was  sent,  or  whether  such  an  order  was 
given.  Our  own  history  supplies  examples  of  the  same  kind.  In 
the  account  of  the  Marquis  of  Argyll’s  death,  in  the  reign  of  Charles 
the  Second,  we  have  a  very  remarkable  contradiction.  Lord  Clar¬ 
endon  relates  that  he  was  condemned  to  be  hanged,  which  was 
performed  the  same  day ;  on  the  contrary,  Burnet,  Woodrow,  Heath, 
Echard,  concur  in  staling  that  he  was  beheaded ;  and  that  he  was 
condemned  upon  the  Saturday,  and  executed  upon  the  Monday.* 
Was  any  reader  of  English  history  ever  sceptic  enough  to  raise 
from  hence  a  question,  whetner  the  Marquis  of  Argyll  was  executed 
or  not?  Yet  this  ought 'to  be  left  in  uncertainty,  according  to  the 
principles  upon  which  the  Christian  history  has  sometimes  been  at¬ 
tacked.  Dr.  Middleton  contended,  that  the  different  hours  of  the 
day  assigned  to  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  by  John  and  by  the  other 
evangelists,  did  not  admit  of  the  reconcilement  which  learned  men 
had  proposed;  and  then  concludes  the  discussion  with  this  hard 


^  See  Biog.  Britann. 


226 


Foley’s  View  of  the 

remark  :  ‘We  must  be  forced,  with  several  of  the  critics,  to  leave 
the  difficulty  just  as  we  found  it,  chargeable  with  all  the  conse¬ 
quences  of  manifest  inconsistency.’*  But  what  are  these  conse¬ 
quences  ?  By  no  means  the  discrediting  of  the  history  as  to  the 
principal  fact,  by  a  repugnancy  (even  supposing  that  repugnancy  not 
to  be  resolvable  into  different  modes  of  computation)  in  the  time  of 
the  day  in  which  it  is  said  to  have  taken  place. 

A  great  deal  of  the  discrepancy  observable  in  the  Gospels,  arises 
from  omission  ;  from  a  fact  or  a  passage  of  Christ’s  life  being  no¬ 
ticed  by  one  writer,  which  is  unnoticed  by  another.  Now,  omis¬ 
sion  is  at  all  times  a  veiy  uncertain  ground  of  objection.  We  per¬ 
ceive  it,  not  only  in  the  comparison  of  different  writers,  but  even 
in  the  same  writer  when  compared  with  himself.  There  are  a  great 
many  particulars,  and  some  of  them  of  importance,  mentioned  by 
Josephus  in  his  Antiquities,  which,  as  w'e  should  have  supposed, 
ught  to  have  been  put  down  by  him  in  their  place  in  the  Jewish 
Wars.t  Suetonius,  Tacitus,  Dio  Cassius,  have,  all  three,  written  of 
the  reign  of  Tiberius.  Each  has  mentioned  many  things  omitted 
by  the  rest,t  yet  no  objection  is  from  thence  taken  to  the  respective 
credit  of  their  histories.  We  have  in  our  own  times,  if  there  were 
not  something  indecorous  in  the  comparison,  the  life  of  an  eminent 
person,  written  by  three  of  his  friends,  in  which  there  is  very  great 
variety  in  the  incidents  selected  by  them  ;  some  apparent,  and  per¬ 
haps  some  real  contradictions ;  yet  without  any  impeachment  of  the 
substantial  truth  of  their  accounts,  of  the  authenticity  of  the  books, 
of  the  competent  information  or  general  fidelity  of  the  writers. 

But  these  discrepancies  will  be  still  more  numerous,  when  men 
do  not  write  histories,  but  memoirs;  which  is  perhaps  the  true 
name  and  proper  description  of  our  Gospels :  that  is,  when  they  do 
not  undertake,  or  ever  meant,  to  deliver,  in  order  of  time,  a  regular 
and  complete  account  of  all  the  things  of  importance,  which  the 
person,  who  is  the  subject  of  their  history,  did  or  said ;  but  only, 
out  of  many  similar  ones,  to  give  such  passages  or  such  actions  and 
discourses,  as  offered  themselves  more  immediately  to  their  atten¬ 
tion,  came  in  the  way  of  their  inquiries,  occurred  to  their  recollec¬ 
tions,  or  were  suggested  by  their  particular  design  at  the  time  of 
writing. 

This  particular  design  may  appear  sometimes,  but  not  always, 
nor  often.  Thus  I  think  that  the  particular  design  which  Saint 
Matthew  had  in  view  whilst  he  was  writing  the  history  of  the 
resurrection,  was  to  attest  the  faithful  performance  of  Christ’s  prom- 
se  to  his  disciples  to  go  before  them  into  Galilee ;  because  he  alone, 
except  Mark,  who  seems  to  have  taken  it  from  him,  has  recorded 
this  promise,  and  he  alone  has  confined  his  narrative  to  that  single 
appearance  to  the  disciples  which  fulfilled  it.  It  was  the  precon¬ 
certed,  the  great  and  most  public  manifestation  of  our  Lord’s  person. 
It  was  the  thing  which  dwelt  upon  Saint  Matthew’s  mind,  and  he 


*  Middleton’s  Reflections  answered  by  Benson.  Hist.  Christ,  vol.  iii 
p.  50.  I  Lardner,  Cred.  part  i.  vol.  ii.  p.  735,  &c.  J  Ib.  p.  743. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  227 

adapted  his  narrative  to  it.  But,  that  there  is  nothing  in  Saint  Mat¬ 
thew’s  language,  w'hich  negatives  other  appearances,  or  which  im¬ 
ports  that  this  appearance  to  his  disciples  in  Galilee  in  pursuance 
of  his  promise,  was  his  first  or  only  appearance,  is  made  pretty  evi¬ 
dent  by  Saint  Mark’s  Gospel,  which  uses  the  same  terms  concern- 
ing  the  appearance  in  Galilee  as  Saint  Matthew  uses,  yet  itself 
records  two  other  appearances  prior  to  this;  ‘Go  your  way,  tell  his 
disciples  and  Peter,  that  he  goeth  before  you  into  Galilee :  there 
shall  ye  see  him  as  he  said  unto  you.’  (xvi.  7).  We  might  be  apt  to 
Infer  from  these  words,  that  this  was  the  first  time  they  were  to  see 
him  :  at  least,  we  might  infer  it,  with  as  much  reason  as  we  draw 
the  inference  from  the  same  words  in  Matthew ;  yet  the  historian 
himself  did  not  perceive  that  he  was  leading  his  readers  to  any 
such  conclusion ;  for  in  the  twelfth  and  two  following  verses  of  this 
chapter,  he  informs  us  of  two  appearances,  which,  by  comparing  the 
order  of  events,  are  shown  to  have  been  prior  to  the  appearance  in 
Galilee.  ‘  He  appeared  in  another  form  unto  two  of  them,  as  they 
w'alked,  and  went  into  the  country :  and  they  went  and  told  it  unto 
the  residue,  neither  believed  they  them :  afterward  he  appeared 
un -o  the  eleven,  as  they  sat  at  meat,  and  upbraided  them  with  their 
unbelief,  because  they  believed  not  them  that  had  seen  him  after 

he  was  risen.’  . 

Probably  the  same  observation,  concerning  the  particular  design 
which  guided  the  historian,  may  be  of  use  in  comparing  many  other 
passages  of  the  Gospels. 


CHAP.  II. 

Erroneous  Opinions  imputed  to  the  Apostles. 

A  SPECIES  of  candor  which  is  shown  towards  every  other  book, 
is  sometimes  refused  to  the  Scriptures ;  and  that  is,  the  placing  of  a 
distinction  between  judgment  and  testimony.  We  do  not  usually 
question  the  credit  of  a  writer,  by  reason  of  an  opinion  he  may  have 
delivered  upon  subjects  unconnected  with  his  evidence  :  and 
even  upon  subjects  connected  with  his  account,  or  mixed  with  it  in 
the  same  discourse  or  writing,  we  naturally  separate  facts  from  opin¬ 
ions,  testimony  from  observation,  narrative  from  argument. 

To  apply  this  equitable  consideration  to  the  Christian  records, 
much  controversy  and  much  objection  has  been  raised  concerning 
the  quotations  of  the  Old  Testament  found  in  the  New ;  some  of 
which  quotations,  it  is  said,  are  applied  in  a  sense,  and  to  events, 
apparently  different  from  that  which  they  bear,  and  from  those  to 
which  they  belong,  in  the  original.  It  is  probable  to  my  apprehen¬ 
sion,  that  many  of  these  quotations  were  intended  by  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament  as  nothing  more  than  accommodations.  They 
quoted  passages  of  their  Scripture,  which  suited,  and  fell  in  with,, 
the  occasion  before  them,  without  always  undertaking  to  assert, 
that  the  occasion  was  in  the  view  of  the  author  of  the  words.  Such 
accommodations  of  passages  from  old  authors,  from  books  especially 


228 


Paleifs  View  of  the 

which  are  in  everyone’s  hands,  are  common  wifh  writers  of  all 
countries ;  but  in  none,  perhaps,  were  more  to  be  expected  than  in 
the  writings  of  the  Jews,  whose  literature  was  almost  entirely  con¬ 
fined  to  their  Scriptures.  Those  prophecies  which  are  alleged  with 
more  solemnity,  and  which  are  accompanied  with  a  precise  decla¬ 
ration,  that  they  originally  respected  the  event  then  related,  are,  I 
think,  truly  alleged.  But  were  it  otherwise ;  is  the  judgment  of 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  in  interpreting  passages  of  the 
Old,  or  sometimes,  perhaps,  in  receiving  established  interpretations, 
so  connected  either  with  their  veracity,  or  with  their  means  of  in¬ 
formation  concerning  what  was  passing  in  their  own  times,  as  that 
a  critical  mistake,  even  were  it  clearly  made  out,  should  overthrow 
their  historical  credit  ? — Does  it  diminish  it  ?  Has  it  any  thing  to  do 
with  it  ? 

Another  error  imputed  to  the  first  Christians,  was  the  expected 
approach  of  the  day  of  judgment.  I  would  introduce  this  objection 
by  a  remark  upon  what  appears  to  me  a  somewhat  similar  example 
Our  Saviour,  speaking  to  Peter  of  John,  said,  ‘If  I  will  that  he  tarry 
till  I  come,  what  is  tljat  to  thee  ?  These  words,  we  find,  had  been 
so  misconstrued,  as  that  a  report  from  thence  ‘  went  abroad  among 
the  brethren,  that  that  disciple  should  not  die.’  Suppose  that  this 
had  come  down  to  us  amongst  the  prevailing  opinions  of  the  early 
Christians,  and  that  the  particular  circumstance,  from  which  the 
mistake  sprang,  had  been  lost  (which,  humanly  speaking,  was  most 
likely  to  have  been  the  case),  some,  at  this  day,  would  have  been 
ready  to  regard  and  quote  the  error,  as  an  impeachment  of  the  whole 
Christian  system.  Yet  with  how  little  justice  such  a  conclusion 
would  have  been  drawn,  or  rather  such  a  presumption  taken  up,  the 
information  which  we  happen  to  possess,  enables  us  now  to  per¬ 
ceive.  To  those  who  think  that  the  Scriptures  lead  us  to  believe, 
that  the  early  Christians,  and  even  the  apostles,  expected  the  ap¬ 
proach  of  the  day  of  judgment  in  their  own  times,  the  same  reflec¬ 
tion  will  occur,  as  that  which  we  have  made  with  respect  to  the 
more  partial,  perhaps,  and  temporary,  but  still  no  less  ancient  error, 
concerning  the  duration  of  St.  John’s  life.  It  was  an  error,  it  may 
be  likewise  said,  which  would  effectually  hinder  those  who  enter¬ 
tained  it  from  acting  the  part  of  impostors. 

The  difficulty  which  attends  the  subject  of  the  present  chapter, 
is  contained  in  this  question ;  If  we  once  admit  the  fallibility  of  the 
apostolic  judgment,  where  are  we  to  stop,  or  in  what  can  we  rely 
upon  it?  To  which  question,  as  arguing  with  unbelievers,  and  as 
arguing  for  the  substantial  truth  of  the  Christian  history,  and  for 
that  alone,  it  is  competent  to  the  advocate  of  Christianity  to  reply. 
Give  me  the  apostles’  testimony,  and  I  do  not  stand  in  need  of  their 
judgment;  give  me  the  facts,  and  I  have  complete  security  for 
every  conclusion  I  want. 

But,  although  I  think  that  it  is  competent  to  the  Christian  apolo¬ 
gist  to  return  this  answer ;  I  do  not  think  that  is  the  only  answer 


*  John  xxi.  23. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  229 

which  the  objection  is  capable  of  receiving.  The  two  following 
cautions,  founded,  I  apprehend,  in  the  most  reasonable  distinctions, 
will  exclude  all  uncertainty  upon  this  head  which  can  be  attended 
wdth  danger. 

First,  to  separate  what  was  the  object  of  the  apostolic  mission, 
and  declared  by  them  to  be  so,  from  what  was  extraneous  to  it,  or 
only  incidentally  connected  with  it.  Of  points  clearly  extraneous  to 
the  religion,  nothing  need  be  said.  Of  points  incidentally  connected 
with  it,  something  may  be  added.  Demoniacal  possession  is  one  of 
these  points :  concerning  the  reality  of  which,  as  this  place  will  not 
admit  the  examination,  or  even  the  production  of  the  argument  bn 
either  side  of  the  question,  it  would  be  arrogance  in  me  to  deliver 
any  judgment.  And  it  is  unnecessary.  For  what  I  am  concerned 
to  observe  is,  that  even  they  who  think  it  was  a  general,  but  erro¬ 
neous  opinion,  of  those  times ;  and  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament,  in  common  with  other  Jewish  writers  of  that  age,  fell  into 
the  manner  of  speaking  and  of  thinking  upon  the  subject,  which 
then  universally  prevailed,  need  not  be  alarmed  by  the  concession, 
as  though  they  had  any  thing  to  fear  from  it,  for  the  truth  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  The  doctrine  was  not  what  Christ  brought  into  the  world. 
It  appears  in  the  Christian  records,  incidentally  and  accidentally,  as 
being  the  subsisting  opinion  of  the  age  and  country  in  which  his 
ministry  was  exercised.  It  was  no  part  of  the  object  of  his  revela¬ 
tion,  to  regulate  other  men’s  opinions  concerning  the  action  of  spir¬ 
itual  substances  upon  animal  bodies.  At  any  rate,  it  is  unconnected 
with  testimony.  If  a  dumb  person  was  by  a  word  restored  to  the 
use  of  his  speech,  it  signifies  little  to  what  cause  the  dumbness  was 
ascribed  ;  and  the  like  of  every  other  cure  wrought  upon  those  wdio 
are  said  to  have  been  possessed.  The  malady  was  real,  the  cure 
was  real,  whether  the  popular  explication  of  the  cause  was  well 
founded,  or  not.  The  matter  of  fact,  the  change,  so  far  as  it  was  an 
object  of  sense,  or  of  testimony,  was  in  either  case  the  same. 

Secondly,  that,  in  reading  the  apostolic  waitings,  Ave  distinguish 
between  their  doctrines  and  their  arguments.  Their  doctrines  came 
to  them  by  revelation  properly  so  called ;  yet  in  propounding  these 
doctrines  in  their  writings  or  discourses,  they  were  wont  to  illus¬ 
trate,  support,  and  enforce  them,  by  such  analogies,  arguments,  and 
considerations,  as  their  own  thoughts  suggested.  Thus  the  call  of 
the  Gentiles,  that  is,  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles  to  the  Christian 
profession  without  a  previous  subjection  to  the  law  of  Moses,  was 
imparted  to  the  apostles  by  revelation,  and  was  attested  by  the  mir¬ 
acles  which  attended  the  Christian  ministry  among  them.  The 
apostles’  own  assurance  of  the  matter  rested  upon  this  foundation. 
Nevertheless,  Saint  Paul,  when  treating  of  the  subject,  offers  a  great 
variety  of  topics  in  its  proof  and  vindication.  The  doctrine  itself 
must  be  received  :  but  it  is  not  necessary,  in  order  to  defend  Chris¬ 
tianity,  to  defend  the  propriety  of  ex^ery  comparison,  or  the  validity 
of  every  argument,  which  the  apostle  has  brought  into  the  discus¬ 
sion.  The  same  obserA  ation  applies  to  some  other  instances ;  and  is, 
in  my  opinion,  very  well  founded;  ‘When  divine  waiters  argue 


230  Paley'^s  View  of  the 

upon  any  point,  we  are  always  bound  to  believe  the  conclusions 
that  their  reasonings  end  in,  as  parts  of  divine  revelation :  but  we 
are  not  bound  to  be  able  to  make  out,  or  even  to  assent  to,  all  the 
premises  made  use  of  by  them,  in  their  whole  extent,  unless  it  ap¬ 
pear  plainly,  that  they  affirm  the  premises  as  expressly  as  they  do 
the  conclusions  proved  by  them.’* 

CHAP.  HI. 

The  Connexion  of  Christianity  with  the  Jewish  History. 

Undoubtedly  our  Saviour  assumes  the  divine  origin  of  the  Mo 
saic  institution :  and,  independently  of  his  authority,  I  conceive  it 
to  be  very  difficult  to  assign  any  other  cause  for  the  commencement 
or  existence  of  that  institution ;  especially  for  the  singular  circum¬ 
stance  of  the  Jews’  adhering  to  the  unity,  when  every  other  people 
slid  into  polytheism;  for  their  being  men  in  religion,  children  in 
eveiy  thing  else ;  behind  other  nations  in  the  arts  of  peace  and  war, 
superior  to  the  most  improved  in  their  sentiments  and  doctrines 
relating  to  the  Deity.t  Undoubtedly,  also,  our  Saviour  recognizes 
the  prophetic  character  of  many  of  their  ancient  writers.  So  far, 
therefore,  we  are  bound  as  Christians  to  go.  But  to  make  Chris¬ 
tianity  answerable  with  its  life,  for  the  circumstantial  truth  of  each 
separate  passage  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  genuineness  of  every 
book,  the  information,  fidelity,  and  judgment,  of  every  writer  in  it, 
is  to  bring,  I  will  not  say  great,  but  unnecessary  difficulties,  into  the 
whole  system.  These  books  were  universally  read  and  received  by 
the  Jews  of  our  Saviour’s  time.  He  and  his  apostles,  in  common 
with  all  other  Jews,  referred  to  them,  alluded  to  them,  used  them. 
Yet,  except  where  he  expressly  ascribes  a  divine  authority  to  par¬ 
ticular  predictions,  I  do  not  know  that  w'e  can  strictly  draw  any 
conclusion  from  the  books  being  so  used  and  applied,  beside  the 
proof,  which  it  unquestionably  is,  of  their  notoriety,  and  reception  at 
that  time.  In  this  view,  our  Scriptures  afford  a  valuable  testimony 


*  Burnet’s  Expos,  art.  6. 

t  ‘In  the  doctrine,  for  example,  of  the  unity,  the  eternity,  the  omnipo¬ 
tence,  the  omniscience,  the  omnipresence,  the  wisdom,  and  the  goodness, 
of  God  ;  in  their  opinions  concerning  Providence,  and  the  creation,  pre¬ 
servation,  and  government  of  the  world.’  Campbell  on  Mir.  p.  207.  To 
which  we  may  add,  in  the  acts  of  their  religion  not  being  accompanied 
either  with  cruelties  or  impurities;  in  the  religion  itself  being  free  from 
a  species  of  superstition  which  prevailed  universally  in  the  popular  reli¬ 
gions  of  the  ancient  world,  and  which  is  to  be  found  perhaps  in.  all  reli¬ 
gions  that  have  their  origin  in  human  artifice  and  credulity,  viz.  fanciful 
connexions  between  certain  appearances  and  actions,  and  the  destiny  of 
nations  or  individuals.  Upon  these  conceits  rested  the  whole  train  of 
auguries  and  auspices,  which  formed  so  much  even  of  the  serious  part  of 
the  religions  of  Greece  and  Rome,  and  of  the  charms  and  incantations 
which  were  practised  in  those  countries  by  the  common  people.  From 
every  thing  of  this  sort  the  religion  of  the  Jews,  alone,  was  free.  Vide 
Priestley’s  Lectures  on  the  Truth  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Revela¬ 
tion,  1794. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  281 

to  those  of  the  Jews.  But  the  nature  of  this  testimony  ought  to  he 
understood.  It  is  surely  very  different  from,  what  it  is  sometimes 
represented  to  be,  a  specific  ratification  of  each  particular  fact  and 
opinion ;  and  not  only  of  each  particular  fact,  but  of  the  motives 
assigned  for  every  action,  together  with  the  judgment  of  praise  or 
dispraise  bestowed  upon  them.  Saint  James,  in  his  Epistle,*  says, 

‘  Ye  have  heard  of  the  patience  of  Job,  and  have  seen  the  end  of 
the  Lord.’  Notwithstanding  this  text,  the  reality  of  Job’s  history, 
and  even  the  existence  of  such  a  person,  has  been  always  deemed 
a  fair  subject  of  inquiry  and  discussion  amongst  Christian  divines 
Saint  James’s  authority  is  considered  as  good  evidence  of  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  the  book  of  Job  at  that  time,  and  of  its  reception  by  the 
Jews;  and  of  nothing  more.  Saint  Paul,  in  his  second  Epistle  to 
Timothy,t  has  this  similitude  ;  ‘Now,  as  Jannes  and  Jambres  with¬ 
stood  Moses,  so  do  these  also  resist  the  truth.’  These  names  are 
not  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  And  it  is  uncertain,  whether 
Saint  Paul  took  them  from  some  apocryphal  writing  then  extant,  or 
from  tradition.  But  no  one  ever  imagined,  that  Saint  Paul  is  here 
asserting  the  authority  of  the  writing,  if  it  was  a  written  account 
which  he  quoted,  or  making  himself  answerable  for  the  authenticity 
of  the  tradition ;  much  less,  that  he  so  involves  himself  with  either 
of  these  questions,  as  that  the  credit  of  his  own  history  and  mission 
should  depend  upon  the  fact,  whether  Jannes  and  Jambres  with¬ 
stood  Moses,  or  not.  For  what  reason  a  more  rigorous  interpreta¬ 
tion  should  be  put  upon  other  references,  it  is  difficult  to  know.  I 
do  not  mean,  that  other  passages  of  the  Jewish  history  stand  upon 
no  better  evidence  than  the  history  of  Job,  or  of  Jannes  and  Jambres 
(I  think  much  otherwise);  but  I  mean,  that  a  reference  in  the  New 
Testament,  to  a  passage  in  the  Old,  does  not  so  fix  its  authority,  as 
to  exclude  all  inquiry  into  its  credibility,  or  into  the  separate  reasons 
upon  which  that  credibility  is  founded  :  and  that  it  is  an  unwar¬ 
rantable,  as  well  as  an  unsafe  rule  to  lay  down  concerning  the 
Jewish  history,  what  was  never  laid  down  concerning  any  other, 
that  either  every  particular  of  it  must  be  true,  or  the  whole  false. 

I  have  thought  it  necessa^  to  state  this  point  explicitly,  because 
a  fashion,  revived  by  Voltaire,  and  pursued  by  the  disciples  of  his 
school,  seems  to  have  much  prevailed  of  late,  of  attacking  Chris¬ 
tianity  through  the  sides  of  Judaism.  Some  objections  of  this  class 
are  founded  in  misconstruction,  some  in  exaggeration ;  but  all  pro¬ 
ceed  upon  a  supposition,  which  has  not  been  made  out  by  argu¬ 
ment,  viz.  that  the  attestation,  which  the  Author  and  first  teachers 
of  Christianity  gave  to  the  divine  mission  of  Moses  and  the  prophets, 
extends  to  every  point  and  portion  of  the  Jewish  history;  and  so 
extends  as  to  make  Christianity  responsible  in  its  own  credibility, 
for  the  circumstantial  truth  (I  had  almost  said  for  the  critical  exact¬ 
ness)  of  every  narrative  contained  in  the  Old  Testament. 


*  Chap.  V.  11. 


t  Chap.  iii.  8. 


232 


Paley*s  View  of  the 

CHAP.  IV. 

Rejection  of  Christianity 

We  acknowledge  that  the  Christian  religion,  although  it  converted 
great  numbers,  did  not  produce  a  universal,  or  even  a  general,  con¬ 
viction  in  the  minds  of  men,  of  the  age  and  countries  in  which  it 
appeared.  And  this  want  of  a  more  complete  and  extensive  success, 
is  called  the  rejection  of  the  Christian  history  and  miracles ;  and  has 
been  thought  by  some  to  form  a  strong  objection  to  the  reality  of 
the  facts  which  the  history  contains. 

The  matter  of  the  objection  divides  itself  into  two  parts;  as  it  re¬ 
lates  to  the  Jews,  and  as  it  relates  to  Heathen  nations :  because 
the  minds  of  these  two  descriptions  of  men  may  have  been,  with 
respect  to  Christianity,  under  the  influence  of  very  different  causes. 
The  case  of  the  Jews,  inasmuch  as  our  Saviour’s  ministry  was 
originally  addressed  to  them,  offers  itself  first  to  our  consideration. 

‘Now,  upon  the  subject  of  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion; 
with  us,  there  is  but  one  question,  viz.  whether  the  miracles  were 
actually  wrought  ?  From  acknowledging  the  miracles,  we  pass  in¬ 
stantaneously  to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  whole.  No  doubt  lies 
between  the  premises  and  the  conclusion.  If  we  believe  the  works, 
or  any  one  of  them,  we  believe  in  Jesus.  And  this  order  of  reasoning 
is  become  so  universal  and  familiar,  that  we  do  not  readily  appre¬ 
hend  how  it  could  ever  have  been  otherwise.  Yet  it  appears  to 
me  perfectly  certain,  that  the  state  of  thought,  in  the  mind  of  a  Jew 
of  our  Saviour’s  age,  was  totally  different  from  this.  After  allowing 
the  reality  of  the  miracle,  he  had  a  great  deal  to  do  to  pereuade 
himself  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  This  is  clearly  intimated  by 
various  passages  of  the  Gospel  history.  It  appears  that,  in  the  ap¬ 
prehension  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  the  miracles  did 
not  irresistibly  carry,  even  those  who  saw  them,  to  the  conclusion 
intended  to  be  drawn  from  them ;  or  so  compel  assent,  as  to  leave 
no  room  for  suspense,  for  the  exercise  of  candor,  or  the  effects  of 

[)rejudice.  And  to  this  point,  at  least,  the  evangelists  may  be  al- 
owed  to  be  good  witnesses ;  because  it  is  a  point  in  which  exag¬ 
geration  or  disguise  would  have  been  the  other  way.  Their  ac¬ 
counts,  if  they  could  be  suspected  of  falsehood,  would  rather  have 
magnified,  than  diminished,  the  effects  of  the  miracles. 

John  vii.  21 — 31.  ‘  Jesus  answered,  and  said  unto  them,  I  have 
done  one  work,  and  ye  all  marvel. — If  a  man  on  the  sabbath-day 
receive  circumcision,  that  the  law  of  Moses  should  not  be  broken ; 
are  ye  angry  at  me,  because  I  have  made  a  man  every  whit  wdiole 
on  the  sabbath-day?  Judge  not  according  to  the  appearance,  but 
judge  righteous  judgment.  Then  said  some  of  them  of  Jerusalem, 
Is  not  this  he  whom  they  seek  to  kill  ?  But,  lo,  he  speaketh  boldly 
and  they  say  nothing  to  him :  do  the  rulers  know  indeed  that  this 
is  the  very  Christ  ?  Howbeit  we  know  this  man,  whence  he  is,  but  when 
Christ  Cometh,  no  man  knowelh  whence  he  is.  Then  cried  Jesus  in 
the  temple  as  he  taught,  saying.  Ye  both  know  me,  and  ye  know 
whence  I  am :  and  I  am  not  come  of  myself,  but  he  that  sent  me  is 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  233 

true,  whom  ye  know  not.  But  I  know  him,  for  I  am  from  him,  and 
he  hath  sent  me.  Then  they  sought  to  take  him  :  but  no  man  laid 
hands  on  him,  because  his  hour  was  not  yet  come.  Aiid  many  of 
the  people  believed  on  him,  and  said,  'When  Christ  ccmeih,  will  he  do 
more  miracles  than  those  which  this  man  hath  done  ?’ 

This  passage  is  very  observable.  It  exhibits  the  reasoning  of  dit 
ferent  sorts  of  persons  upon  the  occasion  of  a  miracle,  which  per* 
sons  of  all  sorts  are  represented  to  have  acknowledged  as  real.  One 
sort  of  men  thought,  that  there  w'as  something  very  exti-aordinary 
in  all  this  ;  but  that  still  Jesus  could  not  be  the  Christ,  because  there 
was  a  circumstance  in  his  appearance  which  militated  with  an  opin¬ 
ion  concerning  Christ,  in  which  they  had  been  brought  up,  and  of 
the  truth  of  which,  it  is  probable,  they  had  never  entertained  a 
particle  of  doubt,  viz.  that  ‘  When  Christ  cometh,  no  man  knoweth 
whence  he  is.’  Another  sort  were  inclined  to  believe  him  to  be 
the  Messiah.  But  even  these  did  not  argue  as  we  should  ;  did  not 
consider  the  miracle  as  of  itself  decisive  of  the  question  ;  as  what, 
if  once  allowed,  excluded  all  farther  debate  upon  the  subject ;  but 
founded  their  opinion  upon  a  kind  of  comparative  reasoning,  ‘  When 
Christ  comefh,  will  he  do  more  miracles  than  those  which  this  man 
hath  done  V 

Another  passage  in  the  same  evangelist,  and  observable  for  the 
same  purpose,  is  that  in  which  he  relates  the  resurrection  of  Laza¬ 
rus  :  ‘  Jesus,’  he  tells  us  (xi.  43,  44),  ‘  when  he  had  thus  spoken, 
cried  with  a  loud  voice,  Lazarus,  come  forth  :  and  he  that  was  dead 
came  forth,  bound  hand  and  foot  with  grave-clothes,  and  his  face 
was  bound  about  with  a  napkin.  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Loose  him, 
and  let  him  go.’  One  might  have  suspected,  that  at  least  all  those 
who  stood  by  the  sepulchre,  when  Lazarus  was  raised,  would  have 
believed  in  Jesus.  Yet  the  evangelist  does  not  so  represent  it: — 
‘Then  many  of  the  Jews  which  came  to  Mary,  and  had  seen  the 
things  which  Jesus  did,  believed  on  him ;  but  some  of  them  went  their 
ways  to  the  Pharisees,  and  told  them  what  things  Jesus  had  done.’ 
We  cannot  suppose  that  the  evangelist  meant  by  this  account,  to 
leave  his  readers  to  imagine,  that  any  of  the  spectators  doubted 
about  the  truth  of  the  miracle^  Far  from  it.  Unquestionably  he 
states  the  miracle  to  have  been  fully  allowed  :  yet  the  persons  who 
allowed  it,  were,  according  to  his  representation,  capable  of  retain¬ 
ing  hostile  sentiments  tow’ards  Jesu.s.  ‘  Believing  in  Jesus’  was  not 
only  to  believe  that  he  wrought  miracles,  but  that  he  was  the  Mes¬ 
siah.  With  us  there  is  no  difference  between  these  two  things : 
with  them,  there  was  the  greatest ;  and  the  difference  is  apparent 
in  this  transaction.  If  Saint  John  has  represented  the  conduct  of 
the  Jews  upon  this  occasion  truly  (and  why  he  should  not  I  cannot 
tell,  for  it  rather  makes  against  him  than  for  him),  it  shows  clearly 
the  principles  upon  which  their  judgment  proceeded.  Whether  he 
has  related  the  matter  truly  or  not,  the  relation  itself  discovers  the 
writer’s  ov^ti  opinion  of  those  principles :  and  that  alone  possesses 
considerable  authority.  In  the  next  chapter,  w'e  have  a  reflection 
of  the  evangelist,  entirely  suited  to  this  state  of  the  case :  ‘  but 

31  U  2 


234  Paleifs  View  of  the 

though  he  had  done  so  many  miracles  before  them,  yet  believed 
they  not  on  him.’*  The  evangelist  does  not  mean  to  impute  the 
defect  of  their  belief  to  any  doubt  about  the  miracles ;  but  to  their 
not  perceiving,  what  all  now?  sufficiently  perceive,  and  what  they 
would  have  perceived,  had  not  their  understandings  been  governed 
by  strong  prejudices,  the  infallible  attestation  which  the  works  of 
Jesus  bore  to  the  truth  of  his  pretensions. 

The  ninth  chapter  of  Saint  John’s  Gospel  contains  a  very  circum¬ 
stantial  account  of  the  cure  of  a  blind  man :  a  miracle  submitted  to 
all  the  scrutiny  and  examination  which  a  sceptic  could  propose.  If 
a  modem  unbeliever  had  drawn  up  the  interrogatories,  they  could 
hardly  have  been  more  critical  or  searching.  The  account  contains 
also  a  very  curious  conference  between  the  Jewish  rulers  and  the 
patient,  in  which  the  point  for  our  present  notice  is  their  resistance 
of  the  force  of  the  miracle,  and  of  the  conclusion  to  which  it  led, 
after  they  had  failed  in  discrediting  its  evidence.  ‘We  know  that 
God  spake  unto  Moses ;  but  as  for  this  fellow,  we  know  not  whence 
he  is.’  That  was  the  answer  which  set  their  minds  at  rest.  And  by 
the  help  of  much  prejudice,  and  great  unwillingness  to  yield,  it 
might  do  so.  In  the  mind  of  the  poor  man  restored  to  sight,  which 
was  under  no  such  bias,  and  felt  no  such  reluctance,  the  miracle 
had  its  natural  operation.  ‘Herein,’  says  he,  ‘is  a  marvellous  thing 
that  ye  know  not  from  whence  he  is,  yet  he  hath  opened  mine  eyes. 
Now  we  know,  that  God  heareth  not  sinners :  but  if  any  man  be  a 
worshipper  of  God,  and  doeth  his  will,  him  he  heareth.  Since  the 
world  began,  was  it  not  heard,  that  any  man  opened  the  eyes  of  one 
that  was  born  blind.  If  this  man  were  not  of  God,  he  could  do 
nothing.’  We  do  not  find,  that  the  Jewish  rulers  had  any  other  re¬ 
ply  to  make  to  this  defence,  than  that  which  authority  is  sometimes 
apt  to  make  to  argument,  ‘  Dost  thou  teach  us  V 

If  it  shall  be  inquired,  how  a  turn  of  thought,  so  different  from 
what  prevails  at  present,  should  obtain  currency  with  the  ancient 
Jews ;  the  answer  is  found  in  two  opinions  which  are  proved  to 
have  subsisted  in  that  age  and  country.  The  one  was,  their  expec¬ 
tation  of  a  Messiah  of  a  kind  totally  contrary  to  what  the  appear¬ 
ance  of  Jesus  bespoke  him  to  be ;  the  other,  their  persuasion  of  the 
agency  of  demons  in  the  production  of  supernatural  effects.  These 
opinions  are  not  supposed  by  us  for  the  purpose  of  argument,  but  are 
evidently  recognized  in  Jewish  writings,  as  well  as  in  ours.  And  it 
ought  moreover  to  be  considered,  that  in  these  opinions  the  Jews  of 
that  age  had  been  from  their  infancy  brought  up ;  that  they  were 
opinions,  the  grounds  of  which  they  had  probably  few  of  them  in¬ 
quired  into,  and  of  the  truth  of  which  they  entertained  no  doubt.  And 
I  think  that  these  two  opinions  conjointly  afford  an  explanation  of 
their  conduct.  The  first  put  them  upon  seeking  out  some  excuse 
to  themselves  for  not  receiving  Jesus  in  the  character  in  which  he 
claimed  to  be  received;  and  the  second  supplied  them  with  just 
such  an  excuse  as  they  wanted.  Let  Jesus  work  what  miracles  he 


*  Chap.  xii.  37. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  235 

would,  still  the  answer  was  in  readiness,  ‘  that  he  wrought  them  by 
the  assistance  of  Beelzebub.’  And  to  this  answer  no  reply  could  be 
made,  but  that  which  our  Saviour  did  make,  by  showing  that  the 
tendency  of  his  mission  was  so  adverse  to  the  views  with  which 
this  being  was,  by  the  objectors  themselves,  supposed  to  act,  that  it 
could  not  reasonably  be  supposed  that  he  would  assist  in  carrying  it 
on.  The  power  displayed  in  the  miracles  did  not  alone  refute  the 
Jewish  solution,  because  the  interposition  of  invisible  agents  being 
once  admitted,  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  the  limits  by  which  their 
efficiency  is  circumscribed.  We  of  this  day  may  be  disposed,  possi¬ 
bly,  to  think  such  opinions  too  absurd  to  have  been  ever  seriously 
entertained.  I  am  not  bound  to  contend  for  the  credibility  of  the 
opinions.  They  were  at  least  as  reasonable  as  the  belief  in  witch¬ 
craft.  They  were  opinions  in  which  the  Jewrs  of  that  age  had  from 
their  infancy  been  instructed ;  and  those  who  cannot  see  enough  in 
the  force  of  this  reason,  to  account  for  their  conduct  towards  our 
Saviour,  do  not  sufficiently  consider  how  such  opinions  may  some¬ 
times  become  very  general  in  a  country,  and  with  what  pertinacity, 
when  once  become  so,  they  are,  for  that  reason  alone,  adhered  to. 
In  the  suspense  which  these  notions,  and  the  prejudices  resulting 
from  them,  might  occasion,  the  candid  and  docile  and  humble- 
minded  would  probably  decide  in  Christ’s  favor ;  the  proud  and  ob¬ 
stinate,  together  with  the  giddy  and  the  thoughtless,  almost  univer¬ 
sal  against  him. 

'This  state  of  opinion  discovers  to  us  also  the  reason  of  what  some 
choose  to  wonder  at,  why  the  Jews  should  reject  miracles  wdien 
they  saw  them,  yet  rely  so  much  upon  the  tradition  of  them  in  their 
own  history.  It  does  not  appear  that  it  had  ever  entered  into  the 
minds  of  those  who  lived  in  the  time  of  Moses  and  the  prophets, 
to  ascribe  iAefr  miracles  to  the  supernatural  agency  of  evil  beings. 
The  solution  was  not  then  invented.  The  authority  of  Moses  and 
the  prophets  being  established,  and  become  the  foundation  of  the 
national  polity  and  religion,  it  was  not  probable  that  the  later  Jews, 
brought  up  in  a  reverence  for  that  religion,  and  the.  subjects  of  that 
polity,  should  apply  to  their  history  a  reasoning  which  tended  to 
overthrow  the  foundation  of  both. 

II.  The  infidelity  of  the  Gentile  world,  and  that  more  especially 
of  men  of  rank  and  learning  in  it,  is  resolved  into  a  principle  which, 
in  my  j  udgment,  will  account  for  the  inefficacy  of  any  argument,  or 
any  evidence  whatever,  viz.  contempt  prior  to  examination.  The 
state  of  religion  amongst  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  had  a  natural 
tendency  to  induce  this  disposition.  Dionysius  Halicamassensis  re¬ 
marks,  that  there  w'ere  six  hundred  different  kinds  of  religions  or 
sacred  rites  exercised  at  Rome.*  The  superior  classes  of  the  com 
rnunity  treated  them  all  as  fables.  Can  we  wonder  then,  that  Chris¬ 
tianity  was  included  in  the  number,  without  inquiry  into  its  sepa¬ 
rate  merits,  or  the  particular  grounds  of  its  pretensions  ?  It  might  be 
either  true  or  false  for  any  thing  they  knew  about  it.  The  religion 


*  Jortin’s  Remarks  on  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  371. 


236  Foley's  View  of  the  ' 

had  nothing  in  its  character  which  immediately  engaged  their  no-  • 
tice.  It  mixed  with  no  politics.  It  produced  no  fine  writers.  It  , 
contained  no  curious  speculations.  When  it  did  reach  their  know¬ 
ledge,  I  doubt  not  but  that  it  appeared  to  them  a  very  strange  sys-  . 
tern, — so  unphilosophical, — dealing  so  little  in  argument  and  discus-  111 
sion,  in  such  arguments  however  and  discussions  as  they  were  ac¬ 
customed  to  entertain.  What  is  said  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  his  nature,  | 
office,  and  ministry,  would  be  in  the  highest  degree  alien  from  the 
conceptions  of  their  theology.  The  Redeemer  and  the  destined  , 
Judge  of  the  human  race,  a  poor  young  man,  executed  at  Jerusalem  , 
with  two  thieves  upon  a  cross !  Still  more  would  the  language  in 
which  the  Christian  doctrine  was  delivered,  be  dissonant  and  bar¬ 
barous  to  their  ears.  What  knew  they  of  grace,  of  redemption,  of 
justification,  of  the  blood  of  Christ  shed  for  the  sins  of  men,  of  re¬ 
concilement,  of  mediation  ?  Christianity  was  made  up  of  points  they 
had  never  thought  of ;  of  terms  which  they  had  never  heard. 

It  was  presented  also  to  the  imagination  of  the  learned  Heathen 
under  additional  disadvantage,  by  reason  of  its  real,  and  still  more 
of  its  nominal,  connexion  with  Judaism.  It  shared  in  the  obloquy 
and  ridicule  with  which  that  people  and  their  religion  vvere  treated 
by  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  They  regarded  Jehovah  himself  only 
as  the  idol  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  what  was  related  of  him,  as 
of  a  piece  with  what  was  told  of  the  tutelar  deities  of  other  coun¬ 
tries  :  nay,  the  Jews  were  in  a  particular  manner  ridiculed  for  being 
a  credulous  race ;  so  that  whatever  reports  of  a  miraculous  nature 
came  out  of  that  country,  were  looked  upon  by  the  Heathen  world 
as  false  and  frivolous.  When  they  heard  of  Christianity,  they  heard 
of  it  as  a  quarrel  amongst  this  people,  about  some  articles  of  their 
own  superstition.  Despising,  therefore,  as  they  did,  the  whole  sys¬ 
tem,  it  was  not  probable  that  they  would  enter,  with  any  degree  of 
seriousness  or  attention,  into  the  detail  of  its  disputes,  or  the  merits 
of  either  side.  How  little  they  knew,  and  with  what  carelessness 
they  judged,  of  these  matters,  appears,  I  think,  pretty  plainly  from 
an  example  of  no  less  weight  than  that  of  Tacitus,  who,  in  a  grave  ' 
and  professed  discourse  upon  the  history  of  the  Jews,  states,  that 
they  w’orshipped  the  effigy  of  an  ass.*  The  passage  is  a  proof,  how 
prone  the  learned  men  of  those  times  were,  and  upon  how  little 
evidence,  to  heap  together  stories  which  might  increase  the  con¬ 
tempt  and  odium  in  which  that  people  was  holden.  The  same  fool 
ish  charge  is  also  confidently  repeated  by  Plutarch.t 

It  is  observable,  that  all  these  considerations  are  of  a  nature  to 
operate  with  the  greatest  force  upon  the  highest  ranks ;  upon  men 
of  education,  and  that  order  of  the  public  from  which  writers  are 
principally  taken  :  I  may  add  also,  upon  the  philosophical  as  well  as 
the  libertine  character;  upon  the  Antonines  or  Julian,  not  less  than! 
upon  Nero  or  Domitian ;  and  more  particularly,  upon  that  large  and 
polished  class  of  men,  who  acquiesced  in  the  general  persuasion,  ‘ 
that  all  they  had  to  do  was  to  practise  the  duties  of  morality,  and  to : 


*  Tacit.  Hist.  lib.  v.  c.  2. 


f  Sympos.  lib  iv  qusest.  5. 


237 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

worship  the  Deity  more  patrio ;  a  habit  of  thinking,  liberal  as  it  may 
appear,  which  shuts  the  door  against  every  argument  for  a  new 
religion.  The  considerations  above  mentioned,  would  acquire  also 
strength  from  the  prejudice  which  men  of  rank  and  learning  uni¬ 
versally  entertain  against  any  thing  that  originates  with  the  vulgar 
and  illiterate ;  which  prejudice  is  known  to  be  as  obstinate  as  any 
prejudice  whatever. 

Yet  Christianity  was  still  making  its  way :  and,  amidst  so  many 
impediments  to  its  progress,  so  much  difficulty  in  procuring  audi¬ 
ence  and  attention,  its  actual  success  is  more  to  be  wondered  at, 
than  that  it  should  not  have  universally  conquered  scorn  and  indib 
ference,  fixed  the  levity  of  a  voluptuous  age,  or,  through  a  cloud  of 
adverse  prejudications,  opened  for  itself  a  passage  to  the  hearts  and 
understandings  of  the  scholars  of  the  age.  ^  • 

And  the  cause,  which  is  here  assigned  for  the  rejection  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  by  men  of  rank  and  learning  among  the  Heathens,  namely, 
a  strong  antecedent  contempt,  accounts  also  for  their  silence  con¬ 
cerning  it.  If  they  had  rejected  it  upon  examination,  they  would 
have  written  about  it ;  they  would  have  given  their  reasons. 

'\  Whereas,  what  men  repudiate  upon  the  strength  of  some  prefixed 
persuasion,  or  from  a  settled  contempt  of  the  subject,  of  the  persons 
who  propose  it,  or  of  the  manner  in  which  it  is  proposed,  they  do 
not  naturally  write  books  about,  or  notice  much  in  what  they  write 
upon  other  subjects. 

The  letters  of  the  Younger  Pliny  furnish  an  example  of  the  silence, 
and  let  us,  in  some  measure,  into  the  cause  of  it.  From  his  cele¬ 
brated  correspondence  with  Trajan,  we  irnow  that  the  Christian 
religion  prevailed  in  a  very  considerable  degree  in  the  province 
over  which  he  presided  ^  that  it  had  excited  his  attention  5  that  he 
had  inquired  into  the  matter,  just  so  much  as  a  Roman  magistrate 
might  be  expected  to  inquire,  viz.  whether  the  religion  contained 
any  opinions  dangerous  to  government,'  but  that  of  its  doctrines,  its 
evidences,  or  its  books,  he  had  not  taken  the  trouble  to  inform 
self  with  any  degree  of  care  or  correctness.  But  although  Pliny  had 
viewed  Christianity  in  a  nearer  position  than  most  of  his  learned 
countrymen  saw  it  int  yet  he  had  regarded  the  whole  with  such 
negli<>'ence  and  disdain  (farther  than  as  it  seemed  to  concern  his 
administration),  that,  in  more  than  two  hundred  and  forty  letters  of 
his  which  have  come  down  to  us,  the  subject  is  never  once  again 
iHGTitionGd.  If,  out  of  this  number,  the  tw’O  letters  between  him  und 
Trajan  had  been  lost ;  with  what  confidence  would  the  obscurity 
of  the  Christian  religion  have  been  argued  from  Pliny’s  silence  about 
it,  and  with  how  little  truth !  . 

The  name  and  character  which  Tacitus  has  given  to  Christianity, 
‘  exitiabiiis  siiperstitio,’  (a  pernicious  superstition),  and  by  which  two 
W'ords  he  disposes  of  the  whole  question  of  the  merits  or  dements 
of  the  religion,  afford  a  strong  proof  how  little  he  knew,  or  con- 
CGmcd  himsolf  to  know,  about  the  muttGr.  I  apprehend  that  I  shall 
not  be  contradicted,  when  I  take  upon  me  to  assert,  that  no  unbe¬ 
liever  of  the  present  age  would  apply  this  epithet  to  the  Christianity 


238 


Paley's  View  of  the 

of  the  New  Testament,  or  not  allow  that  it  was  entirely  unmerited 
Read  the  instructions  given  by  a  great  teacher  of  the  religion,  to 
those  very  Roman  converts  of  whom  Tacitus  speaks ;  and  given  also 
a  very  few  years  before  the  time  of  which  he  is  speaking;  and  which  ' 
are  not,  let  it  be  observed,  a  collection  of  fine  sayings  brought  to¬ 
gether  from  different  parts  of  a  large  work,  but  stand  in  one  entire  I 
passage  of  a  public  letter,  without  the  intermixture  of  a  single  thought 
which  is  frivolous  or  exceptionable : — ‘  Abhor  that  which  is  evil, 
cleave  to  that  which  is  good.  Be  kindly  affectioned  one  to  another, 
with  brotherly  love ;  in  honor  preferring  one  another :  not  slothful 
in  business ;  fervent  in  spirit ;  serving  the  Lord ;  rejoicing  in  hope ; 
patient  in  tribulation;  continuing  instant  in  prayer;  distributing  to 
the  necessity  of  saints;  given  to  hospitality.  Bless  them  which  per¬ 
secute  you ;  bless,  and  curse  not.  Rejoice  with  them  that  do  re¬ 
joice,  and  weep  with  them  that  weep.  Be  of  the  same  mind  one 
towards  another.  Mind,  not  high  things,  but  condescend  to  men  of 
low  estate.  Be  not  wise  in  your  own  conceits.  Recompense  to  no 
man  evil  for  evil.  Provide  things  honest  in  the  sight  of  all  men.  i 
If  it  be  possible,  as  much  as  lieth  in  you,  live  peaceably  with  all 
men.  Avenge  not  yourselves,  but  rather  give  place  unto  wrath : 
for  it  is  written.  Vengeance  is  mine;  I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord: 
therefore,  if  thine  enemy  hunger,  feed  him;  if  he  thirst,  give  him 
drink :  for,  in  so  doing,  thou  shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  on  his  head.  Be 
not  overcome  of  evil,  but  overcome  evil  with  good. 

‘Let  every  soul  be  subject  unto  the  higher  powers.  For  there  is 
no  power  but  of  God :  the  powers  that  be,  are  ordained  of  God. 
Whosoever  therefore  resisteth  the  power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of 
God :  and  they  that  resist,  shall  receive  to  themselves  damnation. 
For  rulers  are  not  a  terror  to  good  works,  but  to  the  evil.  Wilt  thou 
then  not  be  afraid  of  the  power?  Do  that  which  is  good,  and  thou 
shalt  have  praise  of  the  same :  for  he  is  the  minister  of  God  to  thee 
for  good.  But  if  thou  do  that  which  is  evil,  be  afraid  ;  for  he  bear- 
eth  not  the  sword  in  vain:  for  he  is  the  minister  of  God,  a  revenger  i| 
to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil.  Wherefore  ye  must 
needs  be  subject,  not  only  for  wrath,  but  also  for  conscience’  sake. 
For,  for  this  cause  pay  ye  tribute  also :  for  they  are  God’s  ministers, 
attending  continually  upon  this  very  thing.  Render  therefore  to  all 
their  dues:  tribute,  to  whom  tribute  is  due;  custom,  to  whom  cus 
tom ;  fear,  to  whom  fear ;  honor,  to  w^hom  honor. 

‘  Owe  no  man  any  thing,  but  to  love  one  another :  for  he  that  lov 
eth  another,  hath  fulfilled  the  law.  For  this.  Thou  shalt  not  commit 
adultery.  Thou  shalt  not  kill,  Thou  shalt  not  steal,  Thou  shalt  not 
bear  false  witness.  Thou  shalt  not  covet;  and  if  there  be  any  other 
commandment,  it  is  briefly  comprehended  in  this  saying,  Thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself  Love  worketh  no  ill  to  his  neighbor; 
therefore  love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law. 

‘  And  that,  knowing  the  time,  that  now  it  is  high  time  to  aw’ake 
out  of  sleep :  for  now  is  our  salvation  nearer  than  when  we  be¬ 
lieved.  The  night  is  far  spent,  the  day  is  at  hand ;  let  us  therefore 
cast  off  the  works  of  darkness,  and  let  us  put  on  the  armor  of  light 


239 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

Let  us  walk  honestly,  as  in  the  day,  not  in  rioting  and  drunkenness, 
not  in  chambering  and  wantonness,  not  in  strife  and  envying.’"* 

Read  this,  and  then  think  of  ‘  exitiabilis  superstitio ! ! ’— Or,  if  we 
be  not  allowed,  in  contending  with  heathen  authorities,  to  produce 
our  books  against  theirs,  we  may  at  least  be  permitted  to  confront 
theirs  with  one  another.  Of  this  ‘pernicious  superstition,’  what 
could  Pliny  find  to  blame,  when  he  was  led,  by  his  office,  to  insti¬ 
tute  something  like  an  examination  into  the  conduct  and  principles 
of  the  sect?  He  discovered  nothing,  but  that  they  were  wont  to 
meet  together  on  a  slated  day  before  it  was  light,  and  sing  among 
themselves  a  hymn  to  Christ  as  a  God,  and  to  bind  themselves  by 
an  oath,  not  to  the  commission  of  any  wickedness,  but,  not  to  be 
guilty  of  theft,  robbery,  or  adultery ;  never  to  falsify  their  word,  nor 
to  deny  a  pledge  committed  to  them,  when  called  upon  to  return  it. 

Upon  the  words  of  Tacitus  we  may  build  the  following  observa¬ 
tions  : —  I,  ,  •  j 

First;  That  we  are  well  warranted  in  calling  the  view  under 
which  the  learned  men  of  that  age  beheld  Christianity,  an  obscure 
and  distant  view.  Had  Tacitus  known  more  of  Christianity,  of  its 
precepts,  duties,  constitution,  or  design,  however  he  had  discredited 
the  story,  he  would  have  respected  the  principle.  He  would  have 
described  the  religion  differently,  though  he  had  rejected  it.  It  has 
been  satisfiictorily  shown,  that  the  ‘superstition’  of  the  Christians 
consisted  in  worshipping  a  person  unknoyvm  to  the  Roman  calendar; 
and  that  the  ‘perniciousness’  with  which  they  were  reproached, 
was  nothing  else  but  their  opposition  to  the  established  polytheism ; 
and  this  view  of  the  matter  was  just  such  a  one  as  might  be  ex¬ 
pected  to  occur  to  a  mind,  which  held  the  sect  in  too  much  contempt 
to  concern  itself  about  the  grounds  and  reasons  of  their  conduct. 

Secondly ;  We  may  from  hence  remark,  how  little  reliance  can 
be  placed  upon  the  most  acute  judgments,  in  subjects  w’hich  they 
are  pleased  to  despise ;  and  which,  of  course,  they  frorn  the  first 
consider  as  unworthy  to  be  inquired  into.  Had  not  Christianity  sur¬ 
vived  to  tell  its  owm  story,  it  must  have  gone  down  to  posterity  as  a 
'‘  pernicious  superstition and  that  upon  the  credit  of  Tacitus  s  ac¬ 
count-  much,  I  doubt  not,  strengthened  by  the  name  of  the  writer, 
and  the  reputation  of  his  sagacity. 

Thirdly;  That  this  contempt  prior  to  examination,  is  an  intellect¬ 
ual  vice,  from  which  the  greatest  faculties  of  mind  are  not  free.  I 
know  not,  indeed,  w’hether  men  of  the  greatest  faculties  of  mind, 
are  not  the  most  subject  to  it.  Such  men  feel  themselves  seated 
upon  an  eminence.  Looking  down  from  their  height  upon  the  follies 
uf  mankind,  they  behold  contending  tenets  wasting  their  idle  strength 
upon  one  another,  with  the  common  disdain  of  the  absurdity  of  them 
all.  This  habit  of  thought,  however  comfortable  to  the  mind  which 
entertains  it,  or  however  natural  to  great  parts,  is  extremely  danger¬ 
ous  ;  and  more  apt  than  almost  any  other  disposition,  to  produce 
hasty  and  contemptuous,  and,  by  consequence,  erroneous  judgments. 
Doth  of  persons  and  opinions. 


*  Romans  xii.  9,  xiii.  13. 


240 


Paley^s  View  of  the 

Fourthly;  We  need  not  be  surprised  at  many  writers  of  that  affe 
not  mentioning  Christianity  at  all:  when  they  who  did  mention  it, 
appear  to  have  entirely  misconceived  its  nature  and  character;  and, 
m  consequence  of  this  misconception,  to  have  regarded  it  with  neo^- 
ligence  and  contempt.  ° 

To  the  knowledge  of  the  greatest  part  of  the  learned  Heathens, 
me  tacts  of  the  Christian  history  could  only  come  by  report.  The 
books,  probably,  they  never  looked  into.  The  settled  habit  of  their 
minds  was,  and  long  had  been,  an  indiscriminate  rejection  of  all 
reports  of  the  kind.  With  these  sweeping  conclusions,  truth  hath 
no  chance.  It  depends  upon  distinction.  If  they  would  not  inquire, 
how  should  they  be  convinced  ?  It  might  be  founded  in  truth,  though 
they,  who  made  no  search,  might  not  discover  it. 

‘Men  of  rank  and  fortune,  of  wit  and  abilities,  are  often  found, 
even  in  Christian  countries,  to  be  surprisingly  ignorant  of  religion 

to  it.  Such  were  many  of  the  Hea¬ 
thens.  Their  thoughts  were  all  fixed  upon  other  things ;  upon  repu¬ 
tation  and  glory,  upon  wealth  and  power,  upon  luxury  and  pleasure 
upon  business  or  learning.  They  thought,  and  they  had  reason  to 
think,  that  the  religion  of  their  country  was  fable  and  forgery,  a  heap 
of  inconsistent  lies ;  which  inclined  them  to  suppose  that  other  reli¬ 
gions  were  no  better.  Hence  it  came  to  pass,  that  when  the  apostles 
preached  the  Gospel,  and  wrought  miracles  in  confirmation  of  a 
doctrine  every  way  worthy  of  God,  many  Gentiles  knew  little  or 
nothing  of  it,  and  would  not  take  the  least  pains  to  inform  them¬ 
selves  about  it.  This  appears  plainly  from  ancient  history.’* 

I  think  it  by  no  means  unreasonable  to  suppose,  that  the  heathen 
public,  especially  that  part  which  is  made  up  of  men  of  rank  and 
education,  were  divided  into  tw'o  classes;  those  who  despised  Chris¬ 
tianity  beforehand,  and  those  who  received  it.  In  correspondency 
with  wfoich  division  of  character,  the  writers  of  that  age  would  also 
be  of  two  classes ;  those  who  were  silent  about  Christianity,  and 
those  who  were  Christians.  ‘  A  good  man,  who  attended  sufficiently 
to  the  Christian  affairs,  would  become  a  Christian  ;  after  which  his 
testimony  ceased  to  be  Pagan,  and  became  Christian.’t 

I  must  also  add,  that  I  think  it  sufficiently  proved,  that  the  notion 
of  magic  was  resorted  to  by  the  Heathen  adversaries  of  Christianity, 
m  like  manner  as  that  of  diabolical  agency  had  before  been  by  the 
Jews.  Justin  Martyr  alleges  this  as  his  reason  for  arguina-  from 
pri^hecy,  rather  than  from  miracles.  Origen  imputes  this  ev  asion 
to  Celsus ;  Jerome  to  Porphyry ;  and  Lactantius  to  the  Heathens  in 
general.  The  several  passages,  which  contain  these  testimonies, 
will  be  produced  in  the  next  chapter.  It  being  difficult,  however 
to  ascertain  in  what  degree  this  notion  prevailed,  especially  amongst 
the  superior  ranks  of  the  Heathen  communities,  another,  and  I  think 
an  adequate,  cause  has  been  assigned  for  their  infidelity.  It  is  prob¬ 
able,  that  in  many  cases  the  two  causes  would  operate  together. 


*  Jortin’s  Disc,  on  the  Christ.  Rel.  p.  GO.  ed.  4th. 
t  Hartley’s  Obs.  p.  119. 


241 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

CHAP.  V. 

That  the  Christian  Miracles  are  not  recited,  or  appealed  to,  hy  early 
Christian  Writers  themselves,  so  fully  or  frequently  as  might  have 
been  expected. 

I  SHALL  consider  this  objection,  first,  as  it  applies  to  the  letters  of 
the  apostles,  preserved  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  secondly,  as  it 
applies  to  the  remaining  writings  of  other  early  Christians. 

The  epistles  of  the  apostles  are  either  hortatory  or  argumentative. 
So  far  as  they  were  occupied  in  delivering  lessons  of  duty,  rules  of 
public  order,  admonitions  against  certain  prevailing  corruptions, 
against  vice,  or  any  particular  species  of,  it,  or  in  fortifying  and  en¬ 
couraging  the  constancy  of  the  disciples  under  the  trials  to  which 
they  were  exposed,  there  appears  to  be  no  place  or  occasion  for 
more  of  these  references  than  we  actually  find. 

So  far  as  the  epistles  are  argumentative,  the  nature  of  the  argu¬ 
ment  which  they  handle  accounts  for  the  infrequency  of  these  allu¬ 
sions.  These  qjjistles  were  not  written  to  prove  the  truth  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  The  subject  under  consideration  was  not  that  which  the 
miracles  decided,  the  reality  of  our  Lord’s  mission  ;  but  it  was  that 
wLich  the  miracles  did  not  decide,  the  nature  of  his  person  or 
power,  the  design  of  his  advent,  its  effects,  and  of  those  effects-  the 
value,  kind,  and  extent.  Still  I  maintain,  that  miraculous  evidence 
lies  at  the  bottom  of  the  argument.  For  nothing  could  be  so  pre¬ 
posterous  as  for  the  disciples  of  Jesus  to  dispute  amongst  themselves, 
or  with  others,  concerning  nis  office  or  character,  unless  they  be¬ 
lieved  that  he  had  shown,  by  supernatural  proofs,  that  there  was 
something  extraordinary  in  both.  Miraculous  evidence,  therefore, 
forming  not  the  texture  of  these  arguments,  but  the  ground  and 
substratum,  if  it  be  occasionally  discerned,  if  it  be  incidentally  ap¬ 
pealed  to,  it  is  exactly  so  much  as  ought  to  take  place,  supposing 
the  history  to-  be  true. 

As  a  farther  answer  to  the  objection,  that  the  apostolic  epistles  do 
not  contain  so  frequent,  or  such  direct  and  circumstantial  recitals 
of  miracles  as  might  be  expected,  I  would  add^  that  pie  apostolic 
epistles  resemble  in  this  respe^.  the  apostolic  speeches ;  which  speeches 
are  given  by  a  writer  who  distinctly  records  numerous  miracles 
wrought  by  these  apostles  themselves,  and  by  the  Founder  of  the 
institution  in  their  presence :  that  it  is  unwarrantable  to  contend, 
that  the  omission,  or  infrequency,  of  such  recitals  in  the  speeches  of 
the  apostles,  negatives  the  existence  of  the  miracles,  when  the 
speeches  are  given  in  immediate  conjunction  with  the  history  of 
those  miracles :  and  that  a  conclusion  which  cannot  be  inferred 
from  the  speeches,  without  contradicting  the  w’hole  tenor  of  the 
book  which  contains  them,  cannot  be  inferred  from  letters,  which, 
in  this  respect,  are  similar  only  to  the  speeches. 

To  prove  the  similitude  which  we  allege,  it  may  be  remarked, 
that  although  in  Saint  Luke’s  Gospel  the  apostle  Peter  is  repre¬ 
sented  to  have  been  present  at  many  decisive  miracles  wrought  by 
Christ ;  and  although  the  second  part  of  the  same  history  ascribes 


242 


Paley's  View  of  the 

other  decisive  miracles  to  Peter  himself,  particularly  the  cure  of  the 
lame  man  at  the  gate  of  the  temple,  (Acts  iii.  1.)  the  death  of  Ana¬ 
nias  and  Sapphira,  (Acts  v.  1.)  the  cure  of  Aeneas,  (Acts  ix.  34.)  the 
resurrection  of  Dorcas ;  (Acts  ix.  40.)  yet  out  of  six  speeches  of  Pe¬ 
ter,  preserved  in  the  Acts,  I  know  but  two  in  which  reference  is 
made  to  the  miracles  wrought  by  Christ,  and  only  one  in  which  he 
refers  to  miraculous  powers  possessed  by  himself  In  his  speech 
upon  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Peter  addressed  his  audience  with 
great  solemnity,  thus:  ‘Ye  men  of  Israel,  hear  these  words: 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved  of  God  among  you,  by  mi¬ 
racles,  and  w'onders,  and  signs,  which  God  did  by  him  m  the 
midst  of  you,  as  ye  yourselves  also  Imow,’*  &c.  In  his  speech 
upon  the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  he  delivers  his  testimony  to  the 
miracles  performed  by  Christ,  in  these  words:  ‘We  are  witnesses 
of  all  things  which  he  did,  both  in  the  land  of  the  Jews,  and  in  Je- 
rusalem.’t  But  in  this  latter  speech,  no  allusion  appears  to  the 
miracles  wrought  by  himself,  notwithstanding  that  the  miracles 
above  enumerated  all  preceded  the  time  in  which  it  was  delivered. 
In  his  speech  upon  the  election  of  Matthias,t  no  distinct  reference  is 
made  to  any  of  the  miracles  of  Christ’s  history,  except  his  resurrec¬ 
tion.  The  same  also  may  be  observed  of  his  speech  upon  the  cure 
of  the  lame  man  at  the  gate  of  the  temple  :§  the  same  in  his  speech 
before  the  Sanhedrim  ;ll  the  same  in  his  second  apology  in  the  pres¬ 
ence  of  that  assembly.  Stephen’s  long  speech  contains  no  reference 
whatever  to  miracles,  though  it  be  expressly  related  of  him,  in  the 
book  which  preserves  the  speech,  and  almost  immediately  before 
the  speech,  ‘  that  he  did  great  wonders  and  miracles  among  the 
people. ’IF  Again,  although  miracles  be  expressly  attributed  to  Saint 
Paul  iri  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  first  generally,  as  at  Iconium, 
(Acts  xiv.  3.)  during  the  whole  tour  through  the  Upper  Asia,  (xiv. 
27.  XV.  12.)  at  Ephesus:  (xix.  11,  12.)  secondly,  in  specific  instances, 
as  the  blindness  of  Elymas  at  Paphos,’*'’^  the  cure  of  the  cripple  at 
Lystra,tt  of  the  Pythoness  at  Philippi,^  the  miraculous  liberation 
from  prison  in  the  same  city,§$  the  restoration  of  Eutychus,||||  the 
predictions  of  his  shipwreck,irir  the  viper  at  Melita,**’^  the  cure  of 
Publius’s  father,ttt  at  all  which  miracles,  except  the  first  two,  the 
historian  himself  was  present :  notwithf; tending,  I  say,  this  positive 
ascription  of  miracles  to  Saint  Paul,  yet  in  the  speeches  delivered 
by  him,  and  given  as  delivered  by  him,  in  the  same  Wk  in  which 
the  miracles  are  related,  and  the  miraculous  powers  asserted, 
the  appeals  to  his  own  miracles,  or  indeed  to  any  miracles  at  all, 
are  rare  and  incidental.  In  his  speech  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia.ttt 
there  is  no  allusion  but  to  the  resurrection.  In  his  discourse  at 
Miletus,§§$  none  to  any  miracle;  none  in  his  speech  before  Fe¬ 
lix  ;ll||||  none  in  his  speech  before  Festus  ,-111111  except  to  Christ’s 
resurrection,  and  his  own  conversion. 


*  Acts  ii.  22. 
|(  iv.  8. 

D  xvi.  16. 
***  xxviii.  6. 
ii  xxiv.  10. 


t  X.  39. 

V  vi.  8. 

§§  xvi.  26. 
ttt  xxviii.  8. 
util  XXV.  8. 


I  i.  15. 

**  xiii.  11. 
i  XX.  10. 
lU  xiii.  16. 


§  iii.  12. 
tt  xiv.  8. 
HIT  xxvii.  1 
§§§xx.  17. 


243 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

Agreeably  hereunto,  m  thirteen  letters  ascribed  to  Saint  Paul,  we 
have  incessant  references  to  Christ’s  resurrection,  frequent  refer¬ 
ences  to  his  own  conversion,  three  indubitable  references  to  the 
miracles  which  he  wrought;*  four  other  references  to  the  same, 
less  direct,  yet  highly  probable  ;t  but  more  copious  or  circum¬ 
stantial  recitals  W’e  have  not.  The  consent,  therefore,  between 
Saint  Paul’s  speeches  and  letters,  is  in  this  respect  sufficiently  exact : 
and  the  reason  in  both  is  the  same ;  namely,  that  the  mii-aculous 
history  was  all  along  presupposed,  and  that  the  question,  which  oc¬ 
cupied  the  speaker’s  and  the  writer’s  thoughts,  was  this :  whether, 
allowing  the  history  of  Jesus  to  be  true,  he  was,  upon  the  strength 
of  it,  to  be  received  as  the  promised  Messkh  ;  and,  if  he  was,  Vv’hat 
were  the  consequences,  what  was  the  object  and  benefit  of  his 
mission? 

The  general  observation  w'hich  has  been  made  upon  the  apostolic 
writings,  namely,  that  the  subject  of  which  they  treated,  did  not 
lead  them  to  any  direct  recital  of  the  Christian  history,  belongs  also 
to  the  waitings  of  the  apostolic  fathers.  The  epistle  of  Barnabas  is, 
in  its  subject  and  general  composition,  much  like  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews;  an  allegorical  application  of  divers  passages  of  the  Jew¬ 
ish  history,  of  their  law  and  ritual,  to  those  parts  of  the  Chris^an 
dispensation  in  wffiich  the  author  perceived  a  resemblance,  i  he 
epistle  of  Clement  was  written  for  the  sole  purpose  of  quieting  ce^ 
tain  dissensions  that  had  arisen  amongst  the  members  of  the  church 
of  Corinth,  and  of  reviving  in  their  minds  that  temper  and  spirit  of 
which  their  predecessors  in  the  Gospel  had  left  them  an  example. 
The  wwk  of  Hermas  is  a  vision;  quotes  neither  the  Old  Testament 
nor  the  New;  and  merely  falls  now  and  then  into  the  language, 
and  the  mode  of  speech,  which  the  author  had  read  in  our  Gospels. 
The  epistles  of  Polycarp  and  Ignatius  had  for  their  principal  object 
the  order  and  discipline  of  th^e  churches  which  they  addressed. 
Yet,  under  all  these  circumstances  of  disadvantage,  the  great  points 
of  the  Christian  history  are  fully  recognized.  This  hath  been 
shown  in  its  proper  place.J 

There  is,  however,  another  class  of  writers,  to  whom  the  answer 
above  given,  viz.  the  unsuitableness  of  any  such  appeals  or  refer¬ 
ences  as  the  objection  demands,  to  the  subjects  of  which  the  writ¬ 
ings  treated,  does  not  apply  ;  and  that  is,  the  class  of  ancient  apolo¬ 
gists,  whose  declared  design  it  was  to  defend  Christianity,  and  to 
give  the  reasons  of  their  adherence  to  it.  It  is  necessary,  therefore, 
to  inquire  how  the  matter  of  the  objection  stands  in  these. 

The  most  ancient  apologist,  of  whose  works  we  have  the  smallest 
knowledge,  is  Quadratus.  Quadratus  lived  about  seventy  years 
after  the  ascension,  and  presented  his  apology  to  the  emperor 
Adrian.  From  a  passage  of  this  work,  preserved  in  Eusebius,  it 
appears  that  the  author  did  directly  and  formally  appeal  to  the 
miracles  of  Christ,  and  in  terms  as  express  and  confident  as  we 


*■  Gal.  iii.  5.  Rom.  xv.  18,  19.  2  Cor.  xii.  12. 
t  1  Cor.  ii.  4,  5.  Epli.  iii.  7.  Gal.  ii.  8,  1  Thess.  i.  5. 
I  See  page  71,  &c. 


244 


Paley's  View  of  the 

could  desire.  The  passage  (which  has  been  once  already  stated) 
is  as  follows : — ‘  The  works  of  our  Saviour  were  always  conspicuous, 
for  they  were  real ;  both  they  that  were  healed,  and  they  that  were 
raised  from  the  dead,  were  seen,  not  only  when  they  were  healed, 
or  raised,  but  for  a  long  time  afterward :  not  only  whilst  he  dwelled 
on  this  earth,  but  also  after  his  departure,  and  for  a  good  ^hile  after 
it ;  insomuch  as  that  some  of  them  have  reached  to  our  times.’* 
Nothing  can  be  more  rational  or  satisfactory  than  this. 

Justin  Martyr,  the  next  of  the  Christian  apologists  whose  work  is 
not  lost,  and  who  followed  Quadratus  at  the  distance  of  about  thirty 
years,  has  touched  upon  passages  of  Christ’s  history  in  so  many 
places,  that  a  tolerably  complete  account  of  Christ’s  life  might  be 
collected  out  of  his  works.  In  the  following  quotation,  he'  asserts 
the  performance  of  miracles  by  Christ  in  words  as  strong  and  posi¬ 
tive  as  the  language  possesses ;  ‘  Christ  healed  those  who  from  their 
irth  were  blind,  and  deaf,  and  lame ;  causing  by  his  word,  one  to 
eap,  another  to  hear,  and  a  third  to  see :  and  having  raised  the 
dead,  and  caused  them  to  live,  he,  by  his  works,  excited  attention, 
and  induced  the  men  of  that  age  to  know  him.  Who,  however, 
seeing  these  things  done,  said  that  it  w'as  a  magical  appearance,  and 
dared  to  call  him  a  magician,  and  a  deceiver  of  the  people.’t 

In  his  first  apology,!  J ustin  expressly  assigns  the  reason  for  his 
having  recourse  to  the  argument  from  prophecy,  rather  than  alleging 
the  miracles  of  the  Christian  history :  which  reason  w'as,  that  the 
persons  with  whom  he  contended  would  ascribe  these  miracles  to 
magic ;  ‘  Lest  any  of  our  opponents  should  say,  What  hinders,  but 
that  he  who  is  called  Christ  by  us,  being  a  man  sprung  from  men, 
performed  the  miracles  which  we  attribute  to  him,  by  magical  art  ?’ 
The  suggestion  of  this  reason  meets,  as  I  apprehend,  the  very  point 
of  the  present  objection;  more  especially  when  we  find  Justin  fol¬ 
lowed  in  it  by  other  writers  of  that  age.  Irenasus,  who  came  about 
forty  years  after  him,  notices  the  same  evasion  in  the  adversaries  of 
Christianity,  and  replies  to  it  by  the  same  argument :  ‘  But  if  they 
shall  say,  that  the  Lord  performed  these  things  by  an  illusory  ap¬ 
pearance  ((pavTaaiuSu);-),  leading  thesp  objectors  to  the  propliecies, 
we  will  show  from  them,  that  all  things  were  thus  predicted  con¬ 
cerning  him,  and  strictly  came  to  pass.’$  Lactantius,  who  lived  a 
century  lower,  delivers  the  same  sentiment,  upon  the  same  occasion; 
‘He  performed  miracles; — we  might  have  supposed  him  to  have 
been  a  magician,  as  ye  say,  and  as  the  Jews  then  supposed,  if  all  the 
prophets  had  not  with  one  spirit  foretold  that  Christ  should  perform 
hese  very  things.’il 

But  to  return  to  the  Christian  apologists  in  their  order.  Tertul- 
lian: — '  That  person  wdiom  the  Jews  had  vainly  imagined,  from  the 
meanness  of  his  appearance,  to  be  a  mere  man,  they  afterward,  in 
conseqxience  of  the  power  he  exerted,  considered  as  a  magician, 
when  he,  wdth  one  word,  ejected  devils  out  of  the  bodies  of  men, 
gave  sight  to  the  blind,  cleansed  the  leprous,  strengthened  the  nerves 

*  Euseb.  Hist.  1.  iv.  c.  3.  t  Just.  Dial.  p.  2.58.  eel.  Thirlby. 

I  Apoiog.  prim.  p.  48.  ed.  Thirlby.  §  Iren,  1.  ii.  c.  57.  H  Lactant.  v.  3. 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 


245 


of  those  that  had  the  palsy,  and,  lastly,  with  one  command,  restored 
the  dead  to  life ;  when  he,  I  say,  made  the  very  elements  obey  him, 
assuaged  the  storms,  walked  upon  the  seas,  demonsti  ating  himself 

to  be  the  Word  of  God.’* * * §  r\  ■ 

Next  in  the  catalogue  of  professed  apologists  we  may  place  (Jri- 
gen,  who,  it  is  well  known,  published  a  formal  defence  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  in  answer  to  Celsus,  a  Heathen,  who  had  written  a  discourse 
against  it.  I  know  no  expressions,  by  which  a  plainer  or  more  posi¬ 
tive  appeal  to  the  Christian  miracles  can  be  made,  than  the  expres¬ 
sions  used  by  Origen^  ‘Undoubtedly  we  do  think  him  to  be  the 
Christ,  and  the  Son  of  God,  because  he  healed  the  lame  and  the 
blind  ;  and  we  are  the  more  confirmed  in  this  persuasion,  by  wtmt 
is  written  in  the  prophecies:  “Then  shall  the  eyes  of  the  blind  be 
opened,  and  the  ears  of  the  deaf  shall  hear,  and  the  lame  man  shall 
leap  as  a  hart.”  But  that  he  also  raised  the  dead  ;  and  that  it  is  not 
a  fiction  of  those  who  wrote  the  Gospels,  is  evident  from  hence, 
that,  if  it  had  been  a  fiction,  there  would  have  been  many  recorded 
to  be  raised  up,  and  such  as  had  been  a  long  time  in  theii  graves. 
But,  it  not  being  a  fiction,  few  have  been  recorded :  for  instance, 
the  daughter  of  the  ruler  of  a  synagogue,  of  whom  I  do  not  know 
why  he  said,  She  is  not  dead  but  sleepeth,  expressing  something 
peculiar  to  her,  not  common  to  all  dead  persons:  and  the  only  son 
of  a  widow,  on  whom  he  had  compassion,  and  raised  him  fo  \he, 
after  he  had  bid  the  bearers  of  the  corpse  to  stop ;  and  the  third, 
Lazarus,  who  had  been  buried  four  days.’  This  is  positively  to 
assert  the  miracles  of  Christ,  and  it  is  also  to  comment  upon  them, 
and  that  with  a  considerable  degree  of  accuracy  and  candor. 

In  another  passage  of  the  same  author,  we  meet  with  the  old  solu¬ 
tion  of  magic  applied  to  the  miracles  of  Christ  by  the  adversaries  of 
the  religion.  ‘  Celsus,’  sailh  Origen,  ‘  well  knowing  what  great  works 
may  be  alleged  to  have  been  done  by  Jesus,  pretends  to  grant  that 
the  things  related  of  him  are  true  ;  such  as  healing  diseases,  raising 
the  dead,  feeding  multitudes  with  a  few  loaves,  of  which  large  frag¬ 
ments  were  left.’t  And  then  Celsus  gives,  it  seems,  an  answer  to 
these  proofs  of  our  Lord’s  mission,  w'hich,  as  Origen  uimerstood  it, 
resolved  the  phenomena  into  magic ;  for  Origen  begins  his  reply  by 
observing,  ‘  You  see  that  Celsus  in  a  manner  allows  that  there  is 

such  a  thing  as  magic.’t  ^  ^  t  .i.  .  tj  v 

It  appears  also  from  the  testimony  of  St.  Jerome,  that  Por^yiy, 
the  most  learned  and  able  of  the  Heathen  writers  against  Chris¬ 
tianity,  resorted  to  the  same  solution :  ‘  Unless,’  says  he,  speaking  to 
Vigilantius,  ‘  according  to  the  manner  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  pro¬ 
fane,  of  Porphyry  and  Eunomius,  you  pretend  that  these  are  the 

tricks  of  demons.’^ 

This  magic,  these  demons,  this  illusory  appearance,  this  compan- 


1675. 


*  Tertull.  Apolog.  p.  20;  ed.  Priorii,  Par. 

t  Orig.  Cont.  Cels.  1.  ii.  sect.  48. 

t  Lardner’s  Jewish  and  Heath.  Test.  vol.  ii.  p.  294.  ed.  4to. 

§  Jerome,  cont.  Vigil.  ^  ^ 


246 


Paley^s  View  of  the 

son  with  the  tricks  of  jugglers,  by  which  many  of  that  age  accounted 
so  easily  for  the  Christian  miracles,  and  which  answers  the  adA'*- 
cates  of  Christianity  often  thought  it  necessary  to  refute  by  argu¬ 
ments  drawn  from  other  topics,  and  particularly  from  prophecy  (to 
which,  it  seems,  these  solutions  did  not  apply),  we  now  perceive  to 
be  gross  subterfuges.  That  such  reasons  were  ever  seriously  urged, 
and  seriously  received,  is  only  a  proof,  what  a  gloss  and  varnish 
fashion  can  give  to  any  opinion. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  miracles  of  Christ,  understood  as  we 
understand  them,  in  their  literal  and  historical  sense,  were  posi¬ 
tively  and  precisely  asserted  and  appealed  to  by  the  apologists  for 
Christianity;  which  answers  the  allegation  of  the  objection. 

I  am  ready,  however,  to  admit,  that  the  ancient  Christian  advo¬ 
cates  did  not  insist  upon  the  miracles  in  argument,  so  frequently  as 
1  should  have  done.  It  was  their  lot  to  contend  with  notions  of 
magical  agency,  against  which  the  mere  production  of  the  facts  was 
not  sufficient  for  the  convincing  of  their  adversaries :  I  do  not  know 
whether  they  themselves  thought  it  quite  decisive  of  the  contro¬ 
versy.  But  since  it  is  proved,  I  conceive  with  certainty,  that  the 
sparingness  with  which  they  appealed  to  miracles,  was  owing  nei¬ 
ther  to  their  ignorance,  nor  their  doubt  of  the  facts,  it  is,  at  any  rate, 
an  objection,  not  to  the  truth  of  the  history,  but  to  the  judgment  of 
its  defenders. 


CHAP.  VI. 

Want  of  universality  in  the  knowledge  and  reception  of  Christianity 
and  of  greater  clearness  in  the  evidence. 

Of  a  revelation  which  really  came  from  God,  the  proof,  it  has 
been  said,  would  in  all  ages  be  so  public  and  manifest,  that  no  part 
of  the  human  species  would  remain  ignorant  of  it,  no  understanding 
could  fail  of  being  convinced  by  it. 

The  advocates  of  Christianity  do  not  pretend  that  the  evidence 
of  their  religion  possesses  these  qualities.  They  do  not  deny  that 
we  can  conceive  it  to  be  within  the  compass  of  divine  power,  to 
have  communicated  to  the  world  a  higher  degree  of  assurance,  and 
to  have  given  to  his  communication  a  stronger  and  more  extensive 
influence.  For  any  thing  we  are  able  to  discern,  God  could  have  so 
formed  men,  as  to  have  perceived  the  truths  of  religion  intuitively ; 
or  to  have  carried  on  a  communication  with  the  other  world,  whilst 
they  lived  in  this ;  or  to  have  seen  the  individuals  of  the  species, 
instead  of  dying,  pass  to  heaven  by  a  sensible  translation.  He  could 
have  presented  a  separate  miracle  to  each  man’s  senses.  He  could 
have  established  a  standing  miracle.  He  could  have  caused  mira¬ 
cles  to  be  wrought  in  every  different  age  and  country.  These,  and 
many  more  methods,  which  we  may  imagine,  if  we  once  give  loose 
to  our  imaginations,  are,  so  far  as  w'e  can  judge,  all  practicable. 

The  question,  therefore,  is,  not  whether  Christianity  possesses  the 
highest  possible  degree  of  evidence,  but  whether  the  not  having 
more  evidence  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  that  which  we 
have. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  *247 

Now  there  appears  to  be  no  fairer  method  of  judging,  concerning 
any  dispensation  which  is  alleged  to  come  from  God,  when  a  ques¬ 
tion  is  made  whether  such  a  dispensation  could  come  from  God  or 
not,  than  by  comparing  it  with  other  things  which  are  acknowledged 
to  proceed  from  the  same  counsel,  and  to  be  produced  by  the  same 
agency.  If  the  dispensation  in  question  labor  under  no  defects  but 
what  apparently  belong  to  other  dispensations,  these  seeming  de¬ 
fects  do  not  justify  us  in  setting  aside  the  proofs  which  are  offered 
of  its  authenticity,  if  they  be  otherwise  entitled  to  credit. 

Throughout  that  order  then  of  nature,  of  which  God  is  the  author, 
what  we  find  is  a  system  of  henejicence :  we  are  seldom  or  ever  able 
to  make  out  a  system  of  optimism.  I  mean,  that  there  are  few  cases 
in  which,  if  we  permit  ourselves  to  range  in  possibilities,  we  cannot 
suppose  something  more  perfect,  and  more  unobjectionable,  than 
what  we  see.  The  rain  which  descends  from  heaven,  is  confessedly 
amongst  the  contrivances  of  the  Creator,  for  the  sustentation  of  the 
animals  and  vegetables  which  subsist  upon  the  surface  of  the  earth. 
Vet  how  partially  and  irregularly  is  it  supplied!  How  rnuch  of  it 
falls  upon  the  sea,  where  it  can  be  of  no  use  !  how  often  is  it  w'anted 
where  it  would  be  of  the  greatest !  What  tracts  of  continent  are 
rendered  deserts  by  the  scarcity  of  it !  Or,  not  to  speak  of  extreme 
cases,  how  much,  sometimes,  do  inhabited  countries  suffer  by  its 
deficiency  or  delay! — We  could  imagine,  if  to  imagine  were  our 
business,  the  matter  to  be  otherwise  regulated.  We  could  imagine 
showers  to  fall,  just  where  and  when  they  yrould  do  good ;  always 
seasonable,  eveiywhere  sufficient;  so  distributed  as  not  to  leave  a 
field  upon  the  face  of  the  globe  scorched  by  drought,  or  even  a 
plant  withering  for  the  lack  of  moisture.  Yet,  does  the  difference 
between  the  real  case  and  the  imagined  case,  or  the  seeming  infe¬ 
riority  of  the  one  to  the  other,  authorize  us  to  say,  that  the  present 
disposition  of  the  atmosphere  is  not  amongst  the  productions  or  the 
designs  of  the  Deity  ?  Does  it  check  the  inference  which  we  draw 
from  the  confessed  beneficence  of  the  provision?  or  does  it  make 
us  cease  to  admire  the  contrivance  ? — ^The  observation,  which  we 
have  exemplified  in  the  single  instance  of  the  rain  of  heaven,  may 
be  repeated  concerning  most  of  the  phenomena  of  nature ;  and  the 
true  conclusion  to  which  it  leads  is  this :  that  to  inquire  what  the 
Deity  might  have  done,  could  have  done,  or,  as  we  even  sometimes 
presume  to  speak,  ought  to  have  done,  or,  in  hypothetical  cases, 
would  have  done,  and  to  build  any  propositions  upon  such  inquiries 
against  evidence  of  facts,  is  wholly  unwarrantable.  It  is  a  mode 
of  reasoning  which  will  not  do  in  natural  history,  which  will  not 
do  in  natural  religion,  which  cannot  therefore  be  applied  with 
safety  to  revelation.  It  may  have  some  foundation,  in  certain 
speculative  d  priori  ideas  of  the  divine  attributes  ;  but  it  has  none 
in  experience,  or  in  analogy.  The  general  character  of  the  works 
of  nature  is,  on  the  one  hand,  goodness  both  in  design  and  effect; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  liability  to  difficulty,  and  to  objections,  if 
such  objections  be  allowed,  by  reason  of  seeming  incompleteness 
or  uncertainty  in  attaining  their  end.  Christianity  participates  of 


248 


Paley’s  View  of  the 

this  character.  The  true  similitude  between  nature  and  revelation 
ccmsists  in  this ;  that  they  each  bear  strong  marks  of  their  original ; 
that  they  each  also  bear  appearances  of  irregularity  and  defect.  A 
system  of  strict  optimism  may  nevertheless  be  the  real  system  in 
both  cases.  But  what  I  contend  is,  that  the  proof  is  hidden  from 
us ;  that  we  ought  not  to  expect  to  perceive  that  in  revelation,  which 
we  hardly  perceive  in  any  thing;  that  beneficence,  of  which  we  can 
judge,  ought  to  satisfy  us ;  that  optimism,  of  which  we  cannot  judge, 
ought  not  to  be  sought  after.  We  can  judge  of  beneficence,  because  it 
depends  upon  effects  which  we  experience,  and  upon  the  relation 
betw'een  the  means  which  we  see  acting  and  the  ends  which  w'e 
see  produced.  We  cannot  judge  of  optimism,  because  it  necessarily 
implies  a  comparison  of  that  which  is  tried,  with  that  which  is  not 
tried  ;  of  consequences  which  we  see,  with  others  which  we  im¬ 
agine,  and  concerning  many  of  which,  it  is  more  than  probable  we 
know  nothing ;  concerning  some,  that  we  have  no  notion. 

If  Christianity  be  compared  with  the  state  and  progress  of  natural 
religion,  the  argument  of  the  objector  will  gain  nothing  by  the  com¬ 
parison.  I  remember  hearing  an  unbeliever  say,  that,  if  God  had 
given  a  revelation,  he  would  have  written  it  in  the  skies.  Are  the 
truths  of  natural  religion  written  in  the  skies,  or  in  a  language 
w  hich  every  one  reads  ?  or  is  this  the  case  with  the  most  useful 
arts,  or  the  most  necessary  sciences  of  human  life  ?  An  Otaheitean 
or  an  Esquimaux  knows  nothing  of  Christianity;  does  he  know 
more  of  the  principles  of  deism  or  morality?  which,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  his  ignorance,  are  neither  untrue,  nor  unimportant,  nor  uncer¬ 
tain.  The  existence  of  the  Deity  is  left  to  be  collected  from  obser¬ 
vations,  which  every  man  does  not  make,  which  every  man,  per¬ 
haps,  is  not  capable  of  making.  Can  it  be  argued,  that  God  does 
not  exist,  because,  if  he  did,  he  would  let  us  see  him,  or  discover 
himself  to  mankind  by  proofs  (such  as,  we  may  think,  the  nature  of 
the  subject  merited),  which  no  inadvertency  could  miss,  no  preiu- 
dice  withstand  ? 

If  Christianity  be  regarded  as  a  providential  instrument  for  the 
melioration  of  mankind,  its  progress  and  diffusion  resemble  that  of 
other  causes  by  which  human  life  is  improved.  The  diversity  is 
not  greater,  nor  the  advance  more  slow,  in  religion,  than  we  find 
it  to  be  in  learning,  liberty,  government,  laws.  The  Deity  hath 
not  touched  the  order  of  nature  in  vain.  The  Jewish  religion  pro¬ 
duced  great  and  permanent  effects ;  the  Christian  religion  hath 
done  the  same.  It  hath  disposed  the  w'orld  to  amendment.  It  hath 
put  things  in  a  train.  It  is  by  no  means  improbable,  that  it  may  be¬ 
come  universal ;  and  that  the  world  may  continue  in  that  stage  so 
long  as  that  the  duration  of  its  reign  may  bear  a  vast  proportion  to 
the  time  of  its  partial  influence. 

When  we  argue  concerning  Christianity,  that  it  must  necessarily 
be  true,  because  it  is  beneficial,  we  go,  perhaps,  too  far  on  one  side : 
and  we  certainly  go  too  far  on  the  other,  when  w'e  conclude  that  it 
must  be  false,  because  it  is  not  so  efficacious  as  we  could  have  sup¬ 
posed.  The  question  of  its  truth  is  to  be  tried  upon  its  proper  evi- 


249 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

dence,  without  deferring  much  to  this  sort  of  argument,  on  either 
side.  ‘  The  evidence,’  as  Bishop  Butler  hath  rightly  observed,  ‘  de¬ 
pends  upon  the  judgment  we  form  of  human  conduct,  under  given 
circumstances,  of  which  it  may  be  presumed  that  we  know  some¬ 
thing  ;  the  objection  stands  upon  the  supposed  conduct  of  the  Deity, 
under  relations  with  which  we  are  not  acquainted.’ 

What  would  be  the  real  effect  of  that  overpowering  evidence 
which  our  adversaries  require  in  a  revelation,  it  is  difficult  to  fore¬ 
tell  ;  at  least,  we  must  speak  of  it  as  of  a  dispensation  of  which  we 
have  no  experience.  Some  consequences  however  would,  it  is 
probable,  attend  this  economy,  which  do  not  seem  to  befit  a  revela¬ 
tion  that  proceeded  from  God.  One  is,  that  irresistible  proof  would 
restrain  the  voluntary  powers  too  much;  would  not  answer  the 
purpose  of  trial  and  probation ;  would  call  for  no  exercise  of  can¬ 
dor,  seriousness,  humility,  inquiry ;  no  submission  of  passion,  inter¬ 
ests,  and  prejudices,  to  moral  evidence  and  to  probable  truth  ;  no 
habits  of  reflection ;  none  of  that  previous  desire  to  learn  and  to  obey 
the  will  of  God,  which  forms  perhaps  the  test  of  the  virtuous  prin¬ 
ciple,  and  which  induces  men  to  attend,  with  care  and  reverence, 
to  every  credible  intimation  of  that  will,  and  to  resign  present  ad¬ 
vantages  and  present  pleasures  to  every  reasonable  expectation  of 
propitiating  his  favor.  ‘jMen’s  moral  probation  may  be,  whether 
they  will  take  due  care  to  inform  themselves  by  impartial  consider¬ 
ation  ;  and,  afterward,  whether  they  will  act  as  the  case  requires, 
upon  the  evidence  which  they  have.  And  this  we  find  by  expe¬ 
rience,  IS  often  our  probation  in  our  temporal  capacity.’* 

II.  These  modes  of  communication  would  leave  no  place  for  the 
admission  of  internal  evidence ;  which  ought,  perhaps,  to  hear  a  con¬ 
siderable  part  in  the  proof  of  every  revelation,  because  it  is  a  spe¬ 
cies  of  evidence,  which  applies  itself  to  the  knowledge,  love,  and 
practice  of  virtue,  and  which  operates  in  proportion  to  the  degree 
of  those  qualities  which  it  finds  in  the  person  whom  it  addresses. 
Men  of  good  dispositions,  amongst  Christians,  are  greatly  affected 
by  the  impression  which  the  Scriptures  themselves  make  upon  their 
minds.  Their  conviction  is  much  strengthened  by  these  impres¬ 
sions.  And  this  perhaps  was  intended  to  be  one  effect  to  be  pro¬ 
duced  by  the  religion.  It  is  likewise  true,  to  whatever  cause  we 
ascribe  it  (for  I  am  not  in  this  work  at  liberty  to  introduce  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  grace  or  assistance,  or  the  Christian  promise 
that,  ‘  if  any  man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine, 
whether  it  be  of  God, ’t)— it  is  true,  I  say,  that  they  who  sincerely 
act,  or  sincerely  endeavor  to  act,  according  to  wfoat  they  believe, 
that  is,  according  to  the  just  result  of  the  probabilities,  or,  if  you 
please,  the  possibilities  of  natural  and  revealed  religion,  which  they 
themselves  perceive,  and  according  to  a  rational  estimate  of  conse¬ 
quences,  and,  above  all,  according  to  the  just  effect  of  those  princi¬ 
ples  of  gratitude  and  devotion,  which  even  the  view  of  nature 
generates  in  a  well-ordered  mind,  seldom  fail  of  proceeding  farther. 
This  also  may  have  been  exactly  what  was  designed. 


*  Butler’s  Analogy,  part  ii.  c.  vi. 

32 


\  John  vii.  17 


250 


Paley^s  View  of  the 

Whereas,  may  it  not  be  said  that  irresistible  evidence  would  con 
found  all  characters  and  all  dispositions?  would  subvert,  rather  than 
promote,  the  true  purpose  of  the  divine  counsels ;  which  is,  not  to 
produce  obedience  by  a  force  little  short  of  mechanical  constrain. 
.  (which  obedience  would  be  regularity,  not  virtue,  add  would  hardly 
perhaps  differ  from  that  which  inanimate  bodies  pay  to  the  laws 
impressed  upon  their  nature),  but  to  treat  moral  agents  agreeably  to 
what  they  are ;  which  is  done,  when  light  and  motives  are  of  such 
kinds,  and  are  imparted  in  such  measures,  that  the  influence  of  them 
depends  upon  the  recipients  themselves  ?  ‘  It  is  not  meet  to  govern 
rational  free  agents  in  via  by  sight  and  sense.  It  would  be  no  trial 
or  thanks  to  the  most  sensual  wretch  to  forbear  sinning,  if  heaven 
and  hell  w'ere  open  to  his  sight.  That  spiritual  vision  and  fruition  is 
our  state  in  patrid’  (Baxter’s  Reasons,  p.  357.) — ^There  may  be  trutli 
in  this  thought,  though  roughly  expressed.  Few'  things  are  more 
improbable  than  that  we  (the  human  species)  should  be  the  highest 
order  of  beings  in  the  universe:  that  animated  nature  should  ascend 
from  the  lowest  reptile  to  us,  and  all  at  once  stop  there.  If  there  be 
classes  above  us  of  rational  intelligences,  clearer  manifestations  may 
belong  to  them.  This  may  be  one  of  the  distinctions.  And  it  may 
be  one,  to  which  we  ourselves  hereafter  shall  attain. 

III.  But  may  it  not  also  be  asked,  whether  the  perfect  -display  of 
state  of  existence  would  be  compatible  with  the  activity  of 
civil  life,  and  with  the  success  of  human  affairs  ?  I  can  easily  con¬ 
ceive  that  this  impression  may  be  overdone ;  that  it  may  so  seize 
and  fill  the  thoughts,  as  to  leave  no  place  for  the  cares  and  offices 
of  men’s  several  stations,  no  anxiety  for  worldly  prosperity,  or  even 
for  a  worldly  provision,  and,  hj  consequence,  no  sufficient  stimulus 
to  secular  industry.  Of  the  first  Christians  we  read,  ‘  that  all  that 
believed  were  together,  and  had  all  things  common;  and  sold  their 
possessions  and  goods,  and  parted  them  to  all  men,  as  every  man 
had  need  ;  and,  continuing  daily  with  one  accord  in  the  temple,  and 
breaking  bread  from  house  to  house,  did  eat  their  meat  with  glad¬ 
ness  and  singleness  of  heart.”*'  This  was  extremely  natural,  and  just 
what  might  be  expected  from  miraculous  evidence  coming  with  full 
force  upon  the  senses  of  mankind ;  but  I  much  doubt  whether,  if 
this  state  of  mind  had  been  universal,  or  long-continued,  the  busi- 
riess  of  the  w-orld  could  have  gone  on.  The  necessary  arts  of  social 
life  would  have  been  little  cultivated.  The  plow  and  the  loom 
would  have  stood  still.  Agriculture,  manufactures,  trade  and  navi¬ 
gation,  would  not,  I  think,  have  flourished,  if  they  could  have  been 
exercised  at  all.  Men  would  have  addicted  themselves  to  contem¬ 
plative  and  ascetic  lives,  instead  of  lives  of  business  and  useful 
industry.  We  observe  that  Saint  Paul  found  it  necessary,  frequently 
to  recall  his  converts  to  the  ordinary  labors  and  domestic  duties  of 
their  condition ;  and  to  give  them,  in  his  own  example,  a  lesson  of 
contented  application  to  their  worldly  employments. 

By  the  manner  in  which  the  religion  is  now  proposed,  a  great  por 


*  Acts  ii.  44 — 46. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  251 

tion  of  the  human  species  is  enabled,  and  of  these  multitudes  of 
every  generation  are  induced,  to  seek  and  to  effectuate  their  salva¬ 
tion,  through  the  medium  of  Christianity,  without  interruption  of  the 
prosperity  or  of  the  regular  course  of  human  affairs. 

CHAP.  VII. 

The  supposed  Effects  of  Christianity. 

That  a  religion,  which,  under  every  form  in  which  it  is  taught, 
holds  forth  the  final  reward  of  virtue  and  punishment  of  vice,  and 
proposes  those  distinctions  of  virtue  and  vice,  which  the  wisest  and 
most  cultivated  part  of  mankind  confess  to  be  just,  should  not  be 
believed,  is  very  possible  ;  but  that,  so  far  as  it  is  believed,  it  should 
not  produce  any  good,  but  rather  a  bad  effect  upon  public  happi¬ 
ness,  is  a  proposition  which  it  requires  very  strong  evidence  to  ren¬ 
der  credible.  Yet  many  have  been  found  to  contend  for  this  para¬ 
dox,  and  very  confident  appeals  have  been  made  to  history,  and  to 
observation,  for  the  truth  of  it. 

In  the  conclusions,  however,  which  these  writers  draw  from  what 
they  call  experience,  two  sources,  I  think,  of  mistake,  may  be  per¬ 
ceived. 

One  is,  that  they  look  for  the  influence  of  religion  in  the  wrong 
place. 

The  other,  that  they  charge  Christianity  with  many  consequences, 
for  which  it  is  not  responsible. 

I.  The  influence  of  religion  is  not  to  be  sought  for  in  the  councils 
of  princes,  in  the  debates  or  resolutions  of  popular  assemblies,  in  the 
conduct  of  governments  towards  their  subjects,  or  of  states  and 
sovereigns  towards  one  another ;  of  conquerors  at  the  head  of  their 
armies,  or  of  parties  intriguing  for  power  at  home  (topics  w'hich 
alone  almost  occupy  the  attention,  and  fill  the  pages  of  history) ;  but 
must  be  perceived,  if  perceived  at  all,  in  the  silent  course  of  private 
and  domestic  Ijfe.  Nay  more ;  even  there  its  influence  may  not  be 
very  obvious  to  observation.  If  it  check,  in  some  (fegrec,  personal 
dissoluteness,  if  it  beget  a  general  probity  in  the  transaction  of  busi¬ 
ness,  if  it  produce  soft  and  humane  manners  in  the  mass  of  the  com¬ 
munity,  and  occasional  exertions  of  laborious  and  expensive  benev¬ 
olence  in  a  few  individuals,  it  is  all  the  effect  which  can  offer  itself 
to  external  notice.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  within  us.  That 
which  is  the  substance  of  the  religion,  its  hopes  and  consolations,  its 
intermixture  with  the  thoughts  by  day  and  by  night,  the  devotion 
of  the  heart,  the  control  of  appetite,  the  steady  direction  of  the  will 
to  the  commands  of  God,  is  necessarily  invisible.  Yet  upon  these 
depend  the  \drtue  and  happiness  of  millions.  This  cause  renders 
the  representations  of  history,  w'ith  respect  to  religion,  defective  and 
fallacious,  in  a  greater  degree  than  they  are  upon  any  other  subject. 
Religion  operates  most  upon  those  of  whom  history  knows  tlie  least ; 
upon  fathers  and  mothers  in  their  families,  upon  men-servants  and 
maid-servants,  upon  the  orderly  tradesman,  the  quiet  villager,  the 
manufacturer  at  his  loom,  the  husbandman  in  his  fields.  Amongst 


252 


Paley's  View  of  the 

such,  its  influence  collectively  may  be  of  inestimable  value,  yet  its 
effects,  in  the  mean  time,  little  upon  those  who  figure  upon  the 
stage  of  the  world.  They  may  know  nothing  of  it ;  they  may  be¬ 
lieve  nothing  of  it;  they  may  be  actuated  by  motives  more  impetu¬ 
ous  than  those  which  religion  is  able  to  excite.  It  cannot,  there¬ 
fore,  be  thought  strange,  that  this  influence  should  elude  the  grasp 
and  touch  of  public  history ;  for,  what  is  public  history,  but  a  regis¬ 
ter  of  the  successes  and  disappointments,  the  vices,  the  follies,  and 
the  quarrels,  of  those  who  engage  in  contentions  for  power  ? 

I  will  add,  that  much  of  this  influence  may  be  felt  in  times  of 
public  distress,  and  little  of  it  in  times  of  public  wealth  and  secu¬ 
rity.  This  also  increases  the  uncertainty  of  any  opinions  that  we 
draw  from  historica.1  representations.  The  influence  of  Christianity 
is  commensurate  with  no  effects  which  history  states.  We  do  not 
pretend  that  it  has  any  such  necessary  and  irresistible  power  over 
the  affairs  of  nations,  as  to  surmount  the  force  of  other  causes. 

The  Christian  religion  also  acts  upon  public  usages  and  institu¬ 
tions,  by  an  operation  which  is  only  secondary  and  indirect.  Chris¬ 
tianity  IS  not  a  code  of  civil  law.  It  can  only  reach  public  institu¬ 
tions  through  private  character.  Now  its  influence  upon  private 
character  may  be  considerable,  yet  many  public  usages  and  institu¬ 
tions  repugnant  to  its  principles  may  remain.  To  get  rid  of  these, 
the  reigning  part  of  the  community  must  act,  and  act  together.  But 
it  may  be  long  before  the  persons  who  compose  this  body  be  suffi¬ 
ciently  touched  with  the  Christian  character,  to  join  in  the  suppres¬ 
sion  of  practices,  to  which  they  and  the  public  have  been  reconciled 
by  causes  which  will  reconcile  the  human  mind  to  any  thing,  by 
habit  and  interest.  Nevertheless,  the  effects  of  Christianity,  even 
in  this  view,  have  been  important.  It  has  mitigated  the  conduct 
of  war,  and  the  treatment  of  captives.  It  has  softened  the  adminis¬ 
tration  of  despotic,  or  of  nominally  despotic  governments.  It  has 
abolished  polygamy.  It  has  restrained  the  licentiousness  of  divorces. 
It  has  put  an  epd  to  the  exposure  of  children,  and  the  immolation 
of  slaves.  It  has  suppressed  the  combats  of  gladiators,*  and  the 
impurities  of  religious  rites.  It  has  banished,  if  not  unnatural  vices, 
at  least  the  toleration  of  them.  It  has  greatly  meliorated  the  con¬ 
dition  of  the  laborious  part,  that  is  to  say,  of  the  mass  of  every  com¬ 
munity,  by  procuring  for  them  a  day  of  weekly  rest.  In  all  coun¬ 
tries  in  which  it  is  professed,  it  has  produced  numerous  establishments 
for  the  relief  of  sickness  and  poverty ;  and,  in  some,  a  regular  and 
general  provision  by  law.  It  has  triumphed  over  the  slavery  estab¬ 
lished  in  the  Roman  empire :  it  is  contending,  and,  I  trust,  will  one 
day  prevail,  against  the  worse  slavery  of  the  West  Indies. 

A  Christian  writer,t  so  early  as  in  the  second  century,  has  testi- 


*  Lipsius  affirms  (Sat.b.  i.  c.  12.),  that  the  gladiatorial  shows  sometimes 
cost  Europe  twenty  or  thirty  thousand  lives  in  a  month;  and  that  not 
only  the  men,  but  even  the  women  of  all  ranks  were  passionately  fond 
of  these  shows.  See  Bishop  Porteus’s  Sermon  XIII. 
t  Bardesanes,  ap.  Euseb.  Prsep.  Evang.  vi.  10. 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  253 

fied  the  resistance  which  Christianity  made  to  wicked  and  licen¬ 
tious  practices,  though  established  by  law  and  by  public  usage : — 

‘  Neither  in  Parlhia,  do  the  Christians,  though  Parthians,  use  polyg¬ 
amy  ;  nor  in  Persia,  thousrh  Persians,  do  they  marry  their  own 
daughters ;  nor  among  the  iBactri,  or  Galli,  do  they  violate  the  sanc¬ 
tity  of  marriage ;  nor,  wherever  they  are,  do  they  suffer  themselves 
to  be  overcome  by  ill-constituted  laws  and  manners.’ 

Socrates  did  not  destroy  the  idolatry  of  Athens,  or  produce  the 
slightest  revolution  in  the  manners  of  his  country. 

But  the  argument  to  which  I  recur,  is,  that  the  benefit  of  reli 
gion,  being  felt  chiefly  in  the  obscurity  of  private  stations,  necessa¬ 
rily  escapes  the  observation  of  history.  From  the  first  general  noti¬ 
fication  of  Christianity  to  the  present  day,  there  have  been  in  every 
age  many  millions,  whose  names  were  never  heard  of,  made  better 
by  it,  not  only  in  their  conduct,  but  in  their  disposition ;  and  happier, 
not  so  much  in  their  external  circumstances,  as  in  that  which  is 
inter  prcBCordia,  in  that  which  alone  deserves  the  name  of  happiness, 
the  tranquillity  and  consolation  of  their  thoughts.  It  has  been, 
since  its  commencement,  the  author  of  happiness  and  virtue  to  mil¬ 
lions  and  millions  of  the  human  race.  Who  is  there  that  would  not 
wish  his  son  to  be  a  Christian  ? 

Christianity  also,  in  every  country  in  which  it  is  professed,  hath 
obtained  a  sensible,  although  not  a  complete  influence,  upon  the 
public  judgment  of  morals.  And  this  is  very  important.  For  with¬ 
out  the  occasional  correction  which  public  opinion  receives,  by  re¬ 
ferring  to  some  fixed  standard  of  morality,  no  man  can  foretell  into 
what  extravagances  it  might  w^ander.  Assassination  might  become 
as  honorable  as  duelling:  unnatural  crimes  be  accounted  as  venial 
as  fornication  is  wont  to  be  accounted.  In  this  way  it  is  possible, 
that  many  may  be  kept  in  order  by  Christianity,  who  are  not  them¬ 
selves  Christians.  They  may  be  guided  by  the  rectitude  which 
It  communicates  to  public  opinion.  Their  consciences  may  suggest 
their  duty  truly,  and  they  may  ascribe  these  suggestions  to  a  moral 
sense,  or  to  the  native  capacity  of  the  human  intellect,  when  in  fact 
they  are  nothing  more  than  the  public  opinion,  reflected  from  their 
own  minds  ;  and  opinion,  in  a  considerable  degree,  modified  by  the 
lessons  of  Christianity.  ‘  Certain  it  is,  and  this  is  a  great  deal  to 
say,  that  the  generality,  even  of  the  meanest  and  most  vulgar  and 
ignorant  people,  have  truer  and  worthier  notions  of  God,  more  just 
and  right  apprehensions  concerning  his  attributes  and  perfections, 
a  deeper  sense  of  the  difference  of  good  and  evil,  a  greater  regard 
to  moral  obligations,  and  to  the  plain  and  most  necessary  duties  of 
life,  and  a  more  firm  and  universal  expectation  of  a  future  state  of 
rewards  and  punishments,  than,  in  any  Heathen  country,  any  con¬ 
siderable  number  of  men  were  found  to  have  liad.’* 

After  all,  the  value  of  Christianity  is  not  to  be  appreciated  by  its 
temporal  effects.  The  object  of  revelation  is  to  influence  human 
conduct  in  this  life ;  but  what  is  gained  to  happiness  by  that  in- 


*  Clarke,  Ev.  Nat.  Rel.  p.  203.  ed.  v. 


W 


254 


Paley's  View  of  the 

fluence,  can  only  be  estimated  by  taking  in  the  whole  of  human 
existence.  Then,  as  hath  already  been  observed,  there  may  be 
also  great  consequences  of  Christianity,  which  do  not  belong  to  it 
as  a  revelation.  The  effects  upon  human  salvation,  of  the  mission, 
of  the  death,  of  the  present,  of  the  future  agency  of  Christ,  may  be 
universal,  though  the  religion  be  not  universallv  known. 

Secondly,  I  assert  that  Christianity  is  charged  with  many  conse¬ 
quences  for  which  it  is  not  responsible.  I  believe  that  religious 
motives  have  had  no  more  to  do  in  the  formation  of  nine-tenths  of 
the  intolerant  and  persecuting  laws,  which  in  different  countries 
have  been  established  upon  the  subject  of  religion,  than  they  have 
had  to  do  in  England  with  the  making  of  the  game-laws.  These 
measures,  although  they  have  the  Christian  religion  for  their  sub¬ 
ject,  are  resolvable  into  a  principle  which  Christianity  certainly 
did  not  plant  (and  which  Christianity  could  not  universally  con¬ 
demn,  because  it  is  not  universally  wrong),  which  principle  is  no 
other  than  this,  that  they  who  are  in  possession  of  power  do  what 
they  can  to  keep  it.  Christianity  is  answerable  for  no  part  of  the 
mischief  which  has  been  brought  upor  the  world  by  persecution, 
except  that  which  has  arisen  from  conscientious  persecutors.  Now 
these  perhaps  have  never  been  either  numerous  or  powerful.  Nor 
IS  it  to  Christianity  that  even  their  mistake  can  fairly  be  imputed. 
They  have  been  misled  by  an  error  not  properly  Christian  or  reli- 
^ous,  but  by  an  error  in  their  moral  philosophy.  They  pursued 
the  particular,  without  adverting  to  the  general  consequence.  Be- 
heving  certain  articles  of  faith,  or  a  certain  mode  of  worship, -to  be 
highly  conducive,  or  perhaps  essential,  to  salvation,  they  thought 
themselves  bound  to  bring  all  they  could,  by  every  means,  into 
they  thought,  without  considering  what  would  be 
the  effect  of  such  a  conclusion,  when  adopted  amongst  mankind  as 
a  general  rule  of  conduct.  Had  there  been  in  the  New  Testament, 
what  there  are  in  the  Koran,  precepts  authorizing  coercion  in  the 
propagation  of  the  religion,  and  the  use  of  violence  towards  unbe¬ 
lievers,  the  case  would  have  been  different.  This  distinction  could 
not  have  been  taken,  nor  this  defence  made. 

I  apologize  for  no  species  nor  degree  of  persecution,  but  I  think 
that’ even  the  fact  has  been  exaggerated.  The  slave-trade  destroys 
more  in  a  year,  than  the  inquisition  does  in  a  hundred,  or  perhaps 
hath  done  since  its  foundation. 

If  it  be  objected,  as  I  apprehend  it  will  be,  that  Christianity  is 
chargeable  with  every  mischief,  of  which  it  has  been  the  occasion, 
though  not  the  motive ;  I  answer,  that,  if  the  malevolent  passions 
be  there,  the  world  will  never  v^ant  occasions.  The  noxious  ele- 
ment  will  always  find  a  conductor.  Any  point  will  produce  an 
explosion.  Did  the  applauded  intercommunity  of  the  Pagan  the- 
preserve  the  peace  of  the  Roman  world  ?  did  it  prevent  op¬ 
pressions,  proscriptions,  massacres,  devastations?  Was  it  bigotry 
that  carried  Alexander  into  the  east,  or  brought  Caesar  into  Gaul  ? 
Are  the  nations  of  the  world,  into  which  Christianity  hath  not 
^und  its  way,  or  from  which  it  hath  been  banished,  free  from  con* 


255 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

tentions?  Are  their  contentions  less  ruinous  and  sanguinary  ?  Is  it 
owing  to  Christianity,  or  to  the  want  of  it,  -that  the  finest  regions  oi 
the  East,  the  countries  inter  quatuor  maria,  the  peninsula  ol  Creece, 
together  with  a  great  part  of  the  Mediterranean  coast,  are  at  this 
day  a  desert?  or  that  the  banks  of  the  Nile,  whose  constantly  re- 
newed  fertility  is  not  to  be  impaired  by  neglect,  or  destroyed  by  the 
ravao^es  of  war,  serve  only  for  the  scene  of  a  ferocious  anarchy,  or 
the  supply  of  unceasing  hostilities?  Europe  itself  has  known  no  re¬ 
ligious  wars  for  some  centuries,  yet  has  hardly  ever  been  without 
war.  Are  the  calamities,  which  at  this  day  afflict  it,  to  be  imjmted 
to  Christianity  ?  Hath  Poland  fallen  by  a  Christian  crusade  .  Hath 
the  overthrow  in  France  of  civil  order  and  security,  been  effected 
by  the  votaries  of  our  religion,  or  by  the  foes  ?  Amongst  the  awful 
lessons  which  the  crimes  and  miseries  of  that  country  afford  to  man¬ 
kind,  this  is  one  ;  that,  in  order  to  be  a  persecutor,  it  is  not  necessary 
to  be  a  bigot;  that  in  rage  and  cruelty,  in  mischief  and  destruction, 
fanaticism  itself  can  be  outdone  by  infidelity. 

Finally,  If  war,  as  it  is  now  carried  on  between  nations,  produces 
less  misery  and  ruin  than  formerly,  we  are  indebted  perhaps  to 
Christianity  for  the  change,  more  than  to  any  other  cause.  Viewed 
tlierefore  even  in  its  relation  to  this  subject,  it  appears  to  have  been 
of  advantage  to  the  world.  It  hath  humanized  the  conduct  of  wars ; 

it  hath  ceased  to  excite  them.  .  „  -i  j 

The  differences  of  opinion,  that  have  m  all  ages  prevmled 
amongst  Christians,  fall  very  much  within  the  alternative  which 
has  been  stated.  If  we  possessed  the  disposition  which  Chnstianity 
labors,  above  all  other  qualities,  to  inculcate,  these  differences 
would  do  little  harm.  If  that  disposition  be  wanting,  other  causes, 
even  w^ere  these  absent,  would  continually  rise  up  to  call  forth  the 
malevolent  passions  into  action.  Differences  of  opinions,  when  ac¬ 
companied  with  mutual  charity,  which  Christianity  forbids  them  to 
violate,  are  for  the  most  part  innocent,  and  for  some  purposes  use¬ 
ful.  They  promote  inquiry,  discussion,  and  knowledge.  Ihey 
help  to  keep  up  an  attention  to  religious  subjects,  and  a  concern 
about  them,  which  might  be  apt  to  die  away  in  the  calm  and 
silence  of  universal  agreement  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  in  any  de¬ 
gree  true,  that  the  influence  of  religion  is  the  greatest,  where  there 
are  the  fewest  dissenters. 


CHAP.  vm. 

The  Conclusion. 

In  religion,  as  in  every  other  subject  of  human  reasoning,  much 
denends  upon  the  order  in  which  we  dispose  our  inquiries.  A  rnan 
who  takes  up  a  system  of  divinity  with  a  previous  opinion  that  either 
every  part  must  be  true  or  the  whole  false,  approaches  the  discus¬ 
sion  with  great  disadvantage.  No  other  system,  which  is  founded 
upon  moral  evidence,  would  bear  to  be  treated  in  the  same  manner. 


256 


Foley's  View  of  the 

Nevertheless,  in  a  certain  degree,  we  are  all  introduced  to  our  reli 
gious  studies,  under  this  prejudication.  And  it  cannot  be  avoided. 
The  weakness  of  the  human  judgment  in  the  early  part  of  youth, 
yet  its  extreme  susceptibility  of  impression,  renders  it  necessary  to 
furnish  it  with  some  opinions,  and  with  some  principles  or  other.  Or 
indeed,  without  much  express  care,  or  much  endeavor  for  this  pur¬ 
pose,  the  tendency  of  the  mind  of  man  to  assimilate  itself  to  the 
habits  of  thinking  and  speaking  which  prevail  around  him,  pro¬ 
duces  the  same  eflect.  That  indifferency  and  suspense,  that  waiting 
and  equilibrium  of  the  judgment,  which  some  require  in  religious 
matters,  and  which  some  would  wish  to  be  aimed  at  in  the  conduct 
of  education,  are  impossible  to  be  preserved.  They  are  not  given 
to  the  condition  of  human  life. 

It  is  a  consequence  of  this  institution  that  the  doctrines  of  religion 
come  to  us  before  the  proofs;  and  come  to  us  with  that  mixture  of 
explications  and  inferences  from  which  no  public  creed  is,  or  can 
be,  free.  And  the  effect  which  too  frequently  follows,  from  Chris¬ 
tianity  being  presented  to  the  understanding  in  this  form,  is,  that 
when  any  articles,  which  appear  as  parts  of  it,  contradict  the  appre¬ 
hension  of  the  persons  to  whom  it  is  proposed,  men  of  rash  and  con¬ 
fident  tempem  hastily  and  indiscriminately  reject  the  whole.  But 
is  this  to  do  justice,  either  to  themselves  or  to  the  religion  ?  The 
rational  way  of  treating  a  subject  of  such  acknowledged  importance 
is  to  attend,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  general  and  substantial  truth  of 
its  principles,  and  to  that  alone.  When  we  once  feel  a  foundation ; 
when  we  once  perceive  a  ground  of  credibility  in  its  history,  we 
shall  proceed  with  safety  to  inquire  into  the  interpretation  of  its 
records,  aind  into  the  doctrines  which  have  been  deduced  from  them. 
Nor  will  it  either  endanger  our  faith,  or  diminish  or  alter  our  mo¬ 
tives  for  obedience,  if  we  should  discover  that  these  conclusions  are 
formed  with  very  different  degrees  of  probability,  and  possess  very 
different  degrees  of  importance. 

This  conduct  of  the  understanding,  dictated  by  every  rule  of  right 
reasorung,  will  uphold  personal  Christianity,  even  in  those  countries 
in  which  it  is  established  under  forms  the  most  liable  to  difficulty 
and  objection.  It  will  also  have  the  farther  effect  of  guarding  us 
against  the  prejudices  which  are  wont  to  arise  in  our  minds  to  the 
disadvantage  of  religion,  from  observing  the  numerous  controversies 
which  are  carried  on  amongst  its  professors,  and  likewise  of  inducing 
a  spirit  of  lenity  and  moderation  in  our  judgment,  as  well  as  in  our 
treatment  of  those  who  stand,  in  such  controvereies,  upon  sides  oppo¬ 
site  to  ours.  What  is  clear  in  Christianity,  we  shall  find  to  be  sufi 
ficient,  and  to  be  infinitely  valuable ;  what  is  dubious,  unnecessary 
to  be  decided,  or  of  very  subordinate  importance ;  and  what  is  most 
obscure,  will  teach  us  to  bear  with  the  opinions  which  others  may 
have  formed  upon  the  same  subject.  We  shall  say  to  those  who  the 
most  widely  dissent  from  us,  what  Augustin  said  to  the  worst  here¬ 
tics  of  his  age:  Tlli  in  vos  saviant,  qui  nesciunt,  cum  quo  labore 
Verum  inveniatur,  et  quam  difficile  caveantur  errores ; — qui  neseiunt, 
cum  quanta  difficultate  sanetur  oculus  interioris  hominis qui  ne- 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  257 


sciunt,  quibus  suspiriis  et  gemitibus  fiat  ut  ex  quantulacunque  parte 

possit  intelligi  Deus.’*  n  j  r  tu 

A  iudgmeiit,  moreover,  which  is  once  pretty  well  satisned  oi  the 

ffeneral  truth  of  the  religion,  will  not  only  thus  discriminate  in  its 
doctrines,  but  will  possess  sufficient  strength  to  overcome  the  reluc¬ 
tance  of  the  imagination  to  admit  articles  of  faith  which  are  attended 
with  difficulty  of  apprehension,  if  such  articles  of  faith  appear  to  be 
truly  parts  oi  the  revelation.  It  was  to  be  expected  beiorehand, 
that  what  related  to  the  economy,  and  to  tlie  persons,  of  the  invisi¬ 
ble  world,  which  revelation  professes  to  do,  and  which,  ii  true  it 
actually  does,  should  contain  some  points  remote  from  our  analcv 
gies,  and  from  the  comprehension  of  a  mind  which  hath  acquired 
all  its  ideas  from  sense  and  from  experience. 

It  hath  been  my  care,  in  the  preceding  work,  to  preserve  the  sep¬ 
aration  between  evidences  and  doctrines  as  inviolable  as  I  cimld; 
to  remove  from  the  primary  question  all  considerations  which  haye 
been  unnecessarily  joined  with  it;  and  to  ofer  a  defence  to  Chris¬ 
tianity,  which  every  Christian  might  read,  without  seeing  the  tenets 
in  which  he  had  been  brought  up  attacked  or  decried  :  and  it  always 
afforded  a  satisfaction  to  my  mind  to  observe  that  this  was  practma- 
ble ;  that  ffew  or  none  of  our  many  controversies  with  one  another 
afiect  or  relate  to  the  proofs  of  our  religion ;  that  the  rent  never 


descends  to  the  foundation.  .  ,  ^  ^  , 

The  truth  of  Christianity  depends  upon  its  leading  facts,  and  npim 
them  alone.  Now  of  these  we  have  evidence  which  ought  to  satisfy 
us,  at  least  until  it  appear  that  mankind  have  ever  been  deceived 
by  the  same.  We  have  some  uncontested  and  incontestable  points, 
to  which  the  history  of  the  human  species  has  nothing  similar  to 
offer.  A  Jewish  peasant  changed  the  religion  of  the  vyorld,  and 
that,  without  force,  without  powder,  without  support ;  without  one 
natural  source,  or  circumstance  of  attraction,  influence,  or  success. 
Such  a  thing  hath  not  happened  in  any  other  instance.  The  com¬ 
panions  of  this  Person,  after  he  himself  had  been  put  to  death  tor 
his  attempt,  asserted  his  supernatural  character,  founded  upon  his 
supernatural  operations:  and,  in  testimony  of  the  ^uth  of  their 
assertions,  i.  e.  in  consequence  of  their  own  belief  of  that  truth,  and 
in  order  to  communicate  their  knowledge  of  it  to  others,  voluntarily 
entered  upon  lives  of  toil  and  hardship,  and,  with  a  full  expermnce 
of  their  danger,  committed  themselves  to  the  last  extremities  of  per¬ 
secution.  This  hath  not  a  parallel.  More  particularly,  a  very  few 
days  after  this  Person  had  been  publicly  executed,  and  in  the  very 
city  in  which  he  was  buried,  these  his  companions  declared  with 
one  voice  that  his  body  was  restored  to  life ;  that  they  had  seen  him, 
handled  him,  ate  with  him,  conversed  with  him ;  and,  in  pureuance 
of  their  persuasion  of  the  truth  of  what  they  told,  preached  his  reli¬ 
gion,  with  this  strange  fact  as  the  foundation  of  it,  in  the  face  of 
those  who  had  killed  him,  who  were  armed  with  the  power  of  the 
country,  and  necessarily  and  naturally  disposed  to  treat  his  follow 


*  Aug.  contra  Ep.  Fund.  cap.  ii.  n.  2,  3. 


W2 


258 


Paley^s  View  of  the 

ers  as  they  had  treated  himself;  and  having  done  this  upon  the  soot 

Te  i"«>lwence  ofTabrLT.! 

despite  of  difficulties  and  opposition,  and  where  the  nature  of  their 

derision,  insult,  and  out- 
cprfnffi  without  example.  These  three  facts,  I  think,  are 

Ken  wWnl  ^^d  never 

vSpd  Nn  story,  as  to  these  points,  hath  never 

vaiied.  No  other  hath  been  set  up  against  it.  Every  letter,  every 

followers  ohhe  religion; 
tho  ^  k  written  by  them,  from  the  age  of  its  commencement  to 
the  present  time,  in  every  part  of  the  world  in  which  it  hath  been 
professed,  and  with  every  sect  into  which  it  hath  been  divided  (and 
we  have  letters  and  discourses  written  by  contemporaries,  by  wit¬ 
nesses  of  the  transaction,  by  persons  themselves  bearing  a  share  in 
it,  and  other  writings  following  that  age  in  regular  succession),  con¬ 
cur  in  representing  these  facts  in  this  manner.  A  religion  which 
now  possesses  the  greatest  part  of  the  civilized  world,  unquestion- 
ably  sprang  up  at  Jerusalem  at  this  time.  Some  account  must  be 
givenof  Its  origin;  some  cause  assigned  for  its  rise.  All  the  ac¬ 
counts  of  this  origin,  all  the  explications  of  this  cause,  whether 
taken  from  the  writings  of  the  early  followers  of  the  religion  (in 
which,  and  in  which  perhaps  alone,  it  could  be  expected  that  they 
should  be  distinctly  unfolded),  or  from  occasional  notices  in  other 
writings  of  that  or  the  adjoining  age,  either  expressly  allege  the 
facts  above  stated  as  the  means  by  which  the  religion  was  set  up, 
or  advert  to  its  commencement  in  a  manner  which  agrees  with  the 
supposition  of  these  facts  being  true,  and  which  testifies  their  opera¬ 
tion  and  effects.  ^ 

These  propositions  alone  lay  a  foundation  for  our  faith;  for  they 
prove  the  existence  of  a  transaction,  which  cannot  even  in  its  most 
g^eiiera^  parts  be  accounted  for,  upon  any  reasonable  supposition, 
except  that  of  the  truth  of  the  mission.  But  the  particulars,  the  de¬ 
tail  of  the  miracles  or  miraculous  pretences  (for  such  there  necessa- 
rily  must  have  been),  upon  which  this  unexampled  transaction 
rested,  ^d /or  which  these  men  acted  and  suffered  as  they  did  act 
and  suffer.  It  IS  undoubtedly  of  great  importance  to  us  to  know. 
VVe  have  this  detail  from  the  fountain-head,  from  the  persons  them¬ 
selves  ;  in  accounts  written  by  eye-witnesses  of  the  scene,  by  con- 
emporaries  and  companions  of  those  who  were  so;  not  in  one 
book,  but  four,  each  containing  enough  for  the  verification  of  the 
pligion,  all  agreeing  in  the  fundamental  parts  of  the  history.  We 
have  the  authenticity  of  these  books  established,  by  more  and 
stronger  proofs  than  belong  to  almost  any  other  ancient  book  what¬ 
ever,  and  by  proofs  which  widely  distinguish  them  from  any  others 
claiming  a  similar  authority  to  theirs.  If  there  were  any  good  rea¬ 
son  for  doubt  concerning  the  names  to  which  these  books  were  as¬ 
cribed  (which  there  is  not,  for  they  were  never  ascribed  to  any 
other,  and  we  have  evidence  not  long  after  their  publication  of  their 
bearing  the  names  which  they  now  bear),  their  antiquity,  of  which 
there  is  no  question,  their  reputation  and  authority  amongst  th.3 


259 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 

early  disciples  of  the  religion,  of  which  there  is  as  little,  ibrrn  a  v^id 
proof  that  they  must,  in  the  main  at  least,  have  agreed  with  what 
the  first  teachers  of  the  religion  delivered.  . 

When  we  open  these  ancient  volumes,  we  discover  in  them 
marks  of  truth,  whether  we  consider  each  in  itself,  or  collate  them 
with  one  another.  The  writers  certainly  knew  somettoig  of  whi^ 
they  were  waiting  about,  for  they  manifest  an  acquaintance  with 
local  circumstances,  with  the  history  and  usages  of  the  times, 
which  could  only  belong  to  an  inhabitant  of  that  country,  living 
in  that  age.  In  every  narrative  we  perceive  simplicity  and  un¬ 
designedness ;  the  air  and  the  language  of  reality.  When  we 
compare  the  different  narratives  together,  we  find  them  so  varying 
as  to  repel  all  suspicion  of  confederacy ;  so  agreeing  under  this  va¬ 
riety,  as  to  show  that  the  accounts  had  one  real  transaction  for  their 
common  foundation ;  often  attributing  different  actions  and  dis¬ 
courses  to  the  person  whose  history,  or  rather  memoirs  of  whose 
history,  they  profess  to  relate,  yet  actions  and  discourses  so  similar, 
as  very  much  to  bespeak  the  same  character ;  which  is  a  coinci¬ 
dence,  that,  in  such  writers  as  they  were,  could  only  be  the  conse¬ 
quence  of  their  writing  from  fact,  and  not  from  imagination. 

These  four  narratives  are  confined  to  the  history  of  the  Founder 
of  the  religion,  and  end  with  his  ministry.  Since,  however,  it  is 
certain  that  the  affair  went  on,  we  cannot  help  being  anxious  to 
know  how  it  proceeded.  This  intelligence  hath  come  down  to  us 
in  a  work  purporting  to  be  written  by  a  person,  himself  connected 
with  the  business  during  the  first  stages  of  its  progress,  taking  up 
the  story  where  the  former  histories  had  left  it,  carrying  on  the 
narrative,  oftentimes  with  great  particularity,  and  throughout  with 
the  appearance  of  good  sense,*  information,  and  candor ;  staling  all 
along  the  origin,  and  the  only  probable  origin,  of  effects  which  un¬ 
questionably  were  produced,  together  with  the  natural  conse¬ 
quences  of  situations  which  unquestionably  did  exist;  and  confirmed, 
in  the  substance  at  least  of  the  account,  by  the  strongest  possible 
accession  of  testimony  which  a  history  can  receive,  original  letters, 
written  by  the  person  who  is  the  principal  subject  of  the  history, 
written  upon  the  business  to  which  the  history  relates,  and  during 
the  period,  or  soon  after  the  period,  which  the  history  comprises. 
No  man  can  say  that  this  all  together  is  not  a  body  of  strong  histori¬ 
cal  evidence. 

When  we  reflect  that  some  of  those  from  whom  the  books  pro¬ 
ceeded,  are  related  to  have  themselves  wrought  miracles,  to  have 
been  the  subject  of  miracles,  or  of  supernatural  assistance  in  propa¬ 
gating  the  religion,  we  may  perhaps  be  led  to  think,  that  more 
credit,  or  a  different  kind  of  credit,  is  due  to  these  accounts,  than 
what  can  be  claimed  by  merely  human  testimony.  But  this  is  an 


*  See  Peter’s  speech  upon  curing  the  cripple  (Acts  iii.  18),  the  council 
of  the  apostles  (xv.),  Paul’s  discourse  at  Athens  (xvii.  22),  before  Agrippa 
(xxvi.)  I  notice  these  passages,  both  as  fraught  with  good  sense,  and  as 
free  from  tbs  smallest  tincture  of  enthusiasm. 


260 


Paleifs  Vieiv  of  the 

argument  which  cannot  be  addressed  to  sceptics  or  unbelievers.  A 
man  must  be  a  Christian  before  he  can  receive  it.  The  inspiration 
of  the  historical  Scriptures,  the  nature,  degree,  and  extent  of  that 
inspiration,  are  questions  undoubtedly  of  serious  discussion;  but 
they  are  questions  amongst  Christians  themselves,  and  not  between 
them  and  others.  The  doctrine  itself  is  by  no  means  necessary  to 
the  belief  of  Christianity,  which  must,  in  the  first  instance  at  least, 
depend  upon  the  ordinary  maxims  of  historical  credibility.* 

In  viewing  the  detail  of  miracles  recorded  in  these  books,  we 
find  every  supposition  negatived,  by  which  they  can  be  resolved 
into  fraud  or  delusion.  They  were  not  secret,  not  momentary,  not 
tentative,  nor  ambiguous;  nor  performed  under  the  sanction  of 
authority,  with  the  spectators  on  their  side,  or  in  affirmance  of 
tenets  and  practices  already  established.  We  find  also  the  evidence 
alleged  for  them,  and  which  evidence  was  by  great  numbers  re¬ 
ceived,  different  from  that  upon  which  other  miraculous  accounts 
rest.  It  wp  contemporary,  it  was  published  upon  the  spot,  it  con¬ 
tinued;  it  involved  interests  and  qqestions  of  the  greatest  magni¬ 
tude  ;  it  contradicted  the  most  fixed  persuasions  and  prejudices  of 
the  persons  to  whom  it  was  addressed  ;  it  required  from  those  who 
accepted  it,  not  a  simple,  indolent  assent,  but  a  change,  from  thence¬ 
forward,  of  principles  and  conduct,  a  submission  to  consequences 
the  most  serious  and  the  most  deterring,  to  loss  and  danger,  to  in¬ 
sult,  outrage,  and  persecution.  How  such  a  story  should  be  false, 
or,  if  false,  how  under  such  circumstances  it  should  make  its  way, 

I  think  impossible  to  be  explained ;  yet  such  the  Christian  story 
was,  such  were  the  circumstances  under  which  it  came  forth,  and 
in  opposition  to  such  difficulties  did  it  prevail. 

An  event  so  connected  with  the  religion,  and  with  the  fortunes, 
of  the  Jewish  people,  as  one  of  their  race,  one  born  amongst  them, 
establishing  his  authority  and  his  law  throughout  a  great  portion  of 
the  civilized  world,  it  was  perhaps  to  be  expected,  should  be  no¬ 
ticed  in  the  prophetic  writings  of  that  nation ;  especially  when  this 
Person,  together  with  his  own  mission,  caused  also  to  be  acknow¬ 
ledged  the  divine  original  of  their  institution,  and  by  those  who  be¬ 
fore  had  altogether  rejected  it.  Accordingly,  we  peroeive  in  these 
writings  various  intimations  concurring  in  the  person  and  history 
of  Jesus,  in  a  manner,  and  in  a  degree,  in  which  passages  taken 
from  these  books  could  not  be  made  to  concur  in  any  person  arbi¬ 
trarily  assumed,  or  in  any  person  except  him  who  has  been  the 
author  of  great  changes  in  the  affairs  and  opinions  of  mankind.  Of 
some  of  these  predictions  the  weight  depends  a  good  deal  upon  the 
concurrence.  Others  possess  great  separate  strength :  one  in  par¬ 
ticular  does  this  in  an  eminent  degree.  It  is  an  entire  description, 
manifestly  directed  to  one  character  and  to  one  scene  of  things :  it 
IS  extant  in  a  writing,  or  collection  of  writings,  declaredly  prophetic ; 
and  it  applies  to  Christ’s  character,  and  to  the  circumstances  of  his 
life  and  death,  with  considerable  precision,  and  in  a  way  which  no 


*  See  Powell’s  Discourses,  disc.  xv.  -p.  245, 


Evidences  of  Christianity. 


261 


diversity  of  interpretation  hath,  in  my  opinion,  been  able  to  con¬ 
found.  That  the  advent  of  Christ,  and  the  consequences  ot  it, 
should  not  have  been  more  distinctly  revealed  in  the  Jewish  sacred 
books,  is,  I  think,  in  some  measure  accounted  for  by  the  considera¬ 
tion,  that  for  the  Jews  to  have  foreseen  the  fall  of  their  institution, 
and  that  it  was  to  emerge  at  length  into  a  more  perfect  and  corapr^ 
hensive  dispensation,  would  have  cooled  too  much,  and  relax^ 
their  zeal  for  it,  and  their  adherence  to  it,  upon  which  zeal  and  ad¬ 
herence  the  preservation  in  the  world  of  any  remains,  for  many 
ages,  of  religious  truth  might  in  a  great  mea,sure  depend. 

Of  w'hat  a  revelation  discloses  to  mankind,  one,  and  only  one, 
question  can  properly  be  asked.  Was  it  of  importance  to  mankind 
to  know,  or  to  be  better  assured  of?  In  this  question,  when  we 
turn  our  thoughts  to  the  great  Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  of  the  dead,  and  of  a  future  judgment,  no  doubt  can  possibly 
be  entertained.  He  who  gives  me  riches  or  honors,  does  nothing ; 
he  who  even  gives  me  health,  does  little  in  comparison  with  that 
which  lays  before  me  just  grounds  for  expecting  a  restoration  to 
life,  and  a  day  of  account  and  retribution :  which  thing  Christianity 

hath  done  for  millions.  ^  ^  •  * 

Other  articles  of  the  Christian  faith,  although  of  infinite  import¬ 
ance  when  placed  beside  any  other  topic  of  human  inquiry,  are 
only  the  adjuncts  and  circumstances  of  this.  They  are,  however, 
such  as  appear  worthy  of  the  original  to  which  we  ascribe  them. 
The  morality  of  the  religion,  whether  taken  from  the  precepte  or 
the  example  of  its  Founder,  or  from  the  lessons  of  its  primitive 
teachers,  derived,  as  it  should  seem,  from  what  had  been  inculcated 
by  their  Master,  is,  in  all  .its  parts,  wise  and  pure  ;  neither  auapted 
to  vulgar  prejudices,  nor  flattering  popular  notions,  nor  excusing 
established  practices,  but  calculated,  in  the  matter  of  its  instruc¬ 
tion,  truly  to  promote  human  happiness,  and  in  tlm  form  in  which 
it  was  conveyed,  to  produce  impression  and  effect;  a  morality, 
which,  let  it  have  proceeded  from  any -person  whatever,  would 
have  been  satisfactory  evidence  of  his  good  sense  and  integrity,  o 
the  soundness  of  his  understanding,  and  the  probity  of  his  designs; 
a  morality,  in  every  view  of  it,  much  more  perfect  than  could  have 
been  expected  from  the  natural  circumstances  and  character  ot  the 
person  who  delivered  it ;  a  morality,  in  a  word,  which  is,  and  hath 

been,  most  beneficial  to  mankind.  . 

Tloon  the  greatest,  therefore,  of  all  possible  occasions,  and  tor  a 
purple  of  inestima*jle  value,  it  pleased  the  Deity  to  vouchsafe  a 
mirLulous  attestation.  Having  done  this  for  the  institution,  when 
this  alone  could  fix  its  authority,  or  give  to  it  a  beginning,  he  com¬ 
mitted  its  future  progress  to  the  natural  means  of  human  communi¬ 
cation,  and  to  the  influence  of  those  causes  by  which  human  con- 
Su«  and  human  affairs  are  governed.  The  seed  bemg  sown,  was 
lefl  to  vegetate ;  the  leaven,  being  inserted,  was  ^ 

both  according  to  the  laws  of  nature :  laws,  neverthele^,  disused 
and  controlled  by  that  providence  which  conducts  the  affairs  of  the 
universe,  though  by  an  influence  inscrutable,  and  generally  undis- 


262 


Paley's  View  of  the 

tinguishable  by  us.  And  in  tins  Cbristianity  is  analogous  to  most 
other  provisions  for  happiness.  The  provision  is  made ;  and,  being 
made,  is  left  to  act  according  to  laws,  which,  forming  a  part  of  a 
more  general  system,  regulate  this  particular  subject,  in  common 
with  many  others. 

Let  the  constant  recurrence  to  our  observation  of  contrivance, 
tmsign,  and  wisdom,  in  the  works  of  nature,  once  fix  upon  our  minds 
the  behet  of  a  God,  and  after  that  aU  is  easy.  In  the  counsels  of  a 
i^ing  possessed  of  the  power  and  disposition  which  the  Creator  of 
the  umverse  must  possess,  it  is  not  improbable  that  there  should  be 
a  luture  state;  it  is  not  improbable  that  we  should  be  acquainted 
with  It.  A  future  state  rectifies  every  thing;  because,  if  moral 
agents  be  made,  in  the  last  event,  happy  or  miserable,  according  to 
their  conduct  in  the  stations  and  under  the  circumstances  in  which 
they  are  placed,  it  seems  not  very  material  by  the  operation  of  what 
Causes,  according  to  what  rules,  or  even,  if  you  please  to  call  it  so, 
y  what  chance  or  caprice,  these  stations  are  assigned,  or  these  cir¬ 
cumstances  determined.  This  hypothesis,  therefore,  solves  all  that 
objectiori  to. the  divine  care  and  goodness,  which  the  promiscuous 
distribution  of  good  and  evil  (I  do  not  mean  in  the  doubtful  advan¬ 
tages  of  riches  and  grandeur,  but  in  the  unquestionably  important 
distinctions  of  health  and  sickness,  strength  and  infirmity,  bodily 
ease  and  pain,  mental  alacrity  and  depression)  is  apt,  on  so  many 
occasions,  to  create.  This  one  truth  changes  the  nature  of  things ; 
gives  order  to  confusion ;  makes  the  moral  world  of  a  piece  with 
the  natural. 

Nevertheless,  a  higher  degree  of  assurance  than  that  to  which  it 
IS  possible  to  advance  this,  or  any  argument  drawn  from  the  light 
of  nature,  was  necessary,  especially  to  overcome,  the  shock  which 
the  imagination  and  the  senses  receive  from  the  efiects  and  the 
appearances  of  death,  and  the  obstruction  which  thence  arises  to 
the  expectation  of  either  a  continued  or  a  future  existence.  This 
difficulty,  although  of  a  nature,  no  doubt,  to  act  very  forcibly,  will 
be  found,  I  think,  upon  reflection,  to  reside  more  in  our  habits  of 
apprehension,  than  in  the  subject;  and  that  the  giving  way  to  it, 
when  we  have  any  reasonable  grounds  for  the  contrary,  is  rather 
an  indulging  of  the  imagination,  than  any  thing  else.  Abstractedly 
considered,  that  is,  considered  without  relation  to  the  difference 
■which  habit,  and  merely  habit,  produces  in  our  faculties  and  modes 
of  apprehension,  I  do  not  see  any  thing  more  in  the  resurrection  of 
a  dead  man,  than  in  the  conception  of  a  child ;  except  it  be  this,  that 
lie  one  comes  into  the  world  with  a  system  of  prior  consciousness 
bout  him,  which  the  other  does  not ;  and  no  person  wall  say,  that 
he  knows  enough  of  either  subject  to  perceive,  that  this  circum 
stance  makes  such  a  difference  in  the  two  cases,  that  the  one  should 
be  easy,  and  the  other  impossible ;  the  one  natural,  the  other  not  so. 
To  the  first  man,  the  succession  of  the  species  would  be  as  incom¬ 
prehensible,  as  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  to  us. 

Thought  is  different  from  motion,  perception  from  impact:  the 
individuality  of  a  mind  is  hardly  consistent  with  the  diyisibility  of 


Evidences  of  Christianity.  263 

an  extended  substance  ;  or  its  volition,  that  is,  its  power  of  origin¬ 
ating  motion,  with  the  inertness  which  cleaves  to  every  portion  of 
matter  which  our  observation  or  our  experiments  can  reach.  These 
distinctions  lead  us  to  an  immaterial  principle  :  at  least,  they  do  this  ; 
they  so  negative  the  mechanical  properties  of  matter,  in  the  consti¬ 
tution,  of  a  sentient,  still  more  of  a  rational  being,  that  no  argument 
drawn  from  these  properties,  can  be  of  any  great  weight  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  other  reasons,  when  the  question  respects  the  changes  of 
which  Svtch  a  nature  is  capable,  or  the  manner  in  which  these 
changes  are  effected.  Whatever  thought  be,  or  whatever  it  depend 
upon,  the  regular  experience  of  sleep  makes  one  thing  concerning 
it  certain,  that  it  can  be  completely  suspended,  and  completely 
restored. 

If  any  one  find  it  too  great  a  strain  upon  his  thoughts,  to  admit 
the  notion  of  a  substance  strictly  immaterial,  that  is,  from  which 
extension  and  solidity  are  excluded,  he  can  find  no  difficulty  in 
allowing,  that  a  particle  as  small  as  a  particle  of  light,  minuter  than 
all  conceivable  dimensions,  may  just  as  easily  be  the  depository,  the 
organ,  and  the  vehicle,  of  consciousness,  as  the  congeries  of  animal 
substance  which  forms  a  human  body,  or  the  human  brain ;  that, 
being  so,  it  may  transfer  a  proper  identity  to  whatever  shall  here¬ 
after  be  united  to  it ;  may  be  safe  amidst  the  destruction  of  its  in¬ 
teguments  ;  may  connect  the  natural  with  the  spiritual,  the  corrupt¬ 
ible  with  the  glorified,  body.  If  it  be  said,  that  the  mode  and  means 
of  all  this  are  imperceptible  by  our  senses,  it  is  only  what  is  true  of 
the  most  important  agencies  and  operations.  The  great  powers  of 
nature  are  all  invisible.  Gravitation,  electricity,  magnetism,  though 
constantly  present,  and  constantly  exerting  their  influence  ;  though 
within  us,  near  -us,  and  about  us ;  though  diffused  throughout  all 
space,  overspreading  the  surface,  or  penetrating  the  contexture,  of 
all  bodies  with  which  we  are  acquainted,  depend  upon  substances 
and  actions  which  are  totally  concealed  from  our  senses.  The  Sd- 
preme  Intelligence  is  so  himself. 

But  whether  these  or  any  other  attempts  to  satisfy  the  imagina¬ 
tion,  bear  any  resemblance  to  the  truth,  or  whether  the  imagination, 
which,  as  I  have  said  before,  is  a  mere  slave  of  habit,  can  be  satis 
tied  or  not;  when  a  future  state,  and  the  revelation  of  a  future 
state,  is  not  only  perfectly  consistent  with  the  attributes  of  the  Being 
who  governs  the  universe ;  but  when  it  is  more,  when  it  alone  re¬ 
moves  the  appearances  of  contrariety  which  attend  the  operations 
of  his  will  towards  creatures  capable  of  comparative  merit  and 
demerit,  of  reward  and  punishment;  when  a  strong  body  of  histor¬ 
ical  evidence,  confirmed  by  many  internal  tokens  of  truth  and  au- 
“thenticity,  gives  us  just  reason  to  believe  that  such  a  revelation  hath 
actually  been  made ;  we  ought  to  set  our  minds  at  rest  with  the 
assurance,  that  in  the  resources  of  Creative  Wisdom,  expedients 
cannot  be  wanted  to  carry  into  effect  what  the  Deity  hath  purposed : 
that  either  a  new  and  mighty  influence  will  descend  upon  the  human 
world  to  resuscitate  extinguished  consciousness ;  or  that  amidst  the 
other  wonderful  contrivances  with  which  the  universe  abounds,  and 


^  ,»•-  -  .'-‘ 
..,.  %’'Su 


%. 


264 


A  Paley's  yiew,  <^c. 

bj{  some  of  ^^icli  we"spe  animal  life,  in  many  instances,  a^iijning 
impfoved  ofexisteAce,  acquiring  new  organs,  new  per<^tions, 

;  and  sources  of|.6njoyment,  provision  is  also  made,  thefi^gh  by 
;  •'  r^S^S^^ecret  to  ws  (as  all  tb^great  processes  of  nature  for- 
ndiidraig.  the  objects  of  G^^-mOral  government,  throii^  the 
IfeceMary  Ranges  of  their  frame,  to  those  final  distinctions  ^^hap- 
.  >^jPpess  andmiserji,  which  he  hath  declared  to  be  reserved  f^r.obe- 
■  Adaenee  and  transgression,  for  virtue  and  vice,  for  the  use  knd  the 
neglecf,  ^he^jiglUi  and  the  wrong  employment,  of  the  faculties  and 
t  '■  opportunities  withHwhich  he  hath  been  pleased,  severally,  to  intrust, 
and  to  try  us. 


4 


A  •««?:.* 


THE  END 


JO 


1^' 

} 

i ' 
(- 

1. ' 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


3  01 1 2  065529775 


